\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{amsmath, amsfonts}
\usepackage{epsfig}%
\begin{document}
\begin{center} \Large
{\scshape 6.851 Advanced Data Structures (Spring'07)} \\[1ex]
{Prof.~Erik Demaine \quad\quad TA: Oren Weimann} \\[2ex]
\framebox{Problem 2 -- Solution}
\end{center}
\paragraph{\boldmath Wilber~1 is not good enough.}
Consider a path in the perfect BST $P$ that incurs $k$ interleaves.
Such a path can be of length between $k$ and $\lg n$, and must
change the preferred child of $k$ of its nodes. There are therefore
$\sum_{i=k}^{\lg n} {i \choose k}= {\lg n +1\choose k+1}$ options
for each access in the sequence. So
$$ S(m, n, k) = {\lg n +1 \choose k+1}^m.$$
We can assume that our tree behaves differently on different request
sequences (to see this, imagine requiring a special output symbol
right after we find an element). Therefore, at least $\lg S(m, n,
k)$ decisions are needed in order to distinguish between the
different $S(m, n, k)$ access sequences. So
$$T(m, n, k) = \Omega(\lg S(m, n, k))=\Omega(mk\lg \frac{\lg n}{k}
).$$
Notice that for such sequences, if $k$ is a constant then $T(m, n,
k)$ is within a factor of $\lg \lg n$ from Wilber~1 and is tight
with Tango trees.
\paragraph{\boldmath Link-cut trees with LCA.}
The basic idea is: \emph{access}($u$) then \emph{access}($v$) and
output the last node reached via parent pointers (when switching
between auxiliary trees). The only problematic case (where there
will be no parent pointers) is when LCA($u,v$)$ = v$. So if no
parent pointer is traversed we output $v$. Notice that if
LCA($u,v$)$ = u$ then we are fine because \emph{access}($u$) makes
all of $u$'s children unpreferred.
\end{document}