eeh the good ,the bad and the ugly
why round(cargof) stays at 2 ?
uses crt;
type
trail_type = (blue ,desert ,white);
fruit_class = (none ,apple ,pineapple);
type
ontherun = Record
trail : trail_type;
cargo : Integer;
miles : Integer;
end;
Var
b : File of ontherun;
rec : ontherun;
rec_b : array[1..3] of ontherun;
k , cargo , load , xload , miles , run : Integer;
cargof : Double;
fruit : fruit_class;
begin
cargof := 0;
Repeat
cargof := 0.04*cargof + 2.0;
Writeln(round(cargof));
Until cargof > 223;
writeln('hi');
end.
Actually, this has nothing to do specifically with FreePascal. And not Pascal. And not floating-point numbers. And not computer programming. Not even computers.
It's pure math.
We have the recurrence relation a(0) = 0, a(n + 1) = (1/25) a(n) + 2.
With the ansatz a(n) = α + β k^n we find that a(n + 1) = α + β k^(n + 1) = α + β k k^n = α + k(a(n) − α) = α − k α + k a(n) because a(n) − α = β k^n. This should be equal to 2 + (1/25) a(n) for all non-negative values of n, which means that k = 1/25 and α − k α = 2 which implies α = 25/12. Finally, a(0) = 0 yields β = −25/12.
Therefore, a(n) = (25/12) (1 − 1/25^n) for all non-negative n.
It is easily verified that this is indeed a solution and that a(n) → 25/12 as n → ∞; specifically, a(n) grows monotonically to this limit.
Now, 25/12 = 2.08333333333.... so rounded to the nearest integer the value will never exceed 2.
If you output your intermediate calculations of cargof (before rounding), it appears that the value is converging on 2.08333333333333.
I guess a way to think of it is that you're adding 4% each time, but it's 4% of the difference between each result, not a compound 4% of the total.
Related
hello I need to calculate this binomial coefficient
${2n \choose n} - {2n \choose n-1}$
for big numbers, and I don't know how can i use data type LongWord or QWord.
Any idea? :)
If you try to calculate n! for n larger than a few hundred you will overflow pascals floating point numbers, so the naive method of calculating {2n choose n} by using (2n)!/(n!)^2 may not work, even though the final number might fit into a real without the overflow, as the (2n)! may overflow.
What you need to do is to mix the multiplication and division so you never get overflow or underflow. For example, assuming {2n choose n} itself won't overflow, something like:
X2nChoosen = 1.0;
for i := 1 to n do
X2nChoosen := X2nChooseN*(2*i)*(2*i-1)/(i*i);
In the age Pascal was designed, logarithms and slide rules were a commonly used tool among engineers, so much so it led to the inclusion of some basic logarithmic functions.
ln(i) takes the (natural) logarithm of a positive number. “Natural” refers to e, Euler’s constant.
exp(i) calculates Euler’s constant to the power of i, eⁱ.
You can utilize logarithmic identities to overcome limitations of integer to some degree. To use the factorial formula of the binomial coefficient you can write:
type
integerNonNegative = 0..maxInt;
function factorialLn(n: integerNonNegative): real;
var
f: real value 0.0;
begin
for n := n downto 2 do
begin
f := f + ln(n);
end;
factorialLn := f;
end;
function binomialCoefficient(
protected n, k: integerNonNegative
): integerNonNegative;
begin
binomialCoefficient := round(exp(
factorialLn(n) -
(factorialLn(k) + factorialLn(n - k))
));
end;
I think, this is great, because it does not require you to use/load an extra library, and let’s not forget learn it. The GMP, GNU multiple precision library, for instance, is biiiiig and requires some time to get immersed with it. This way you can simply write
binomialCoefficient(2 * n, n) - binomialCoefficient(2 * n, n - 1)
Yet the best way is of course to improve your algorithm. In this case, you are particularly interested in decreasing the magnitude for the factorial. Browsing some formulary I notice your expression looks similar to
⎛ p − 1 ⎞ ⎛ p − 1 ⎞ p − 2 q ⎛ p ⎞
⎜ ⎟ − ⎜ ⎟ = ――――――― ⎜ ⎟
⎝ q ⎠ ⎝ q − 1 ⎠ p ⎝ q ⎠
So you do some substitution
p — 1 = 2 n │ + 1
p = 2 n + 1
Expand it in the original equivalence
⎛ 2 n ⎞ ⎛ 2 n ⎞ 2 n + 1 − 2 n ⎛ 2 n + 1 ⎞
⎜ ⎟ − ⎜ ⎟ = ――――――――――――― ⎜ ⎟
⎝ n ⎠ ⎝ n − 1 ⎠ 2 n + 1 ⎝ n ⎠
Now that we got a product instead of a difference, we expand everything and merge it:
2 n + 1 − 2 n ⎛ 2 n + 1 ⎞ 1 (2 n + 1)!
――――――――――――― ⎜ ⎟ = ――――――― ―――――――――――――――――
2 n + 1 ⎝ n ⎠ 2 n + 1 n! (2 n + 1 − n)!
1 (2 n)! (2 n + 1) │
= ――――――― ――――――――――――――――― │ cancel 2n+1
2 n + 1 n! (n + 1)! │
(2 n)!
= ―――――――――――
n! (n + 1)!
2 n
∏ i
i = 1
= ―――――――――――――――――――――――
n
∏ i n! (n + 1)
i = 1
n 2 n
∏ i ∏ i
i = 1 i = n + 1
= ――――――――――――――――――――――――――
n
∏ i n! (n + 1)
i = 1
2 n
(n + 1) ∏ i
i = n + 2
= ――――――――――――――――――――――――――
(n + 1) n!
2 n
∏ i
i = n + 2
= ―――――――――――――
n!
This on the other hand reveals that we only need n − 2 iterations. In other words, calculating the following does not require any overhead introduced by logarithms, yet is just as precise, but also you don’t exceed the limits of integer, and last but not least it’s faster:
r := 1.0;
for i := 2 to n do
begin
r := r / i * (n + i);
end;
writeLn(round(r));
This is just the following written in a procedural style:
8! / 5! 6 ⋅ 7 ⋅ 8
――――――― = ―――――――――――――――――――――――――
3! 1 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 3
6 7 8
= ――― ⋅ ――― ⋅ ―――
1 2 3
Neat, huh?
Can someone help me with how to reason inductively that this scala code
lazy val y : Stream[Int] = 1 #:: (y map (_ + 1))
produces a list of natural numbers from 1 onwards?
The value at position in 1 #:: whatever is 1, so we know y(0) = 1.
At a greater position we have y(n+1) = whatever(n). Here whatever is y map (_+1), so y(n+1) = (y map (_+1))(n).
We want to prove forall n. y(n) = n + 1.
We know this is true for n = 0, y(0) = 1
(y.map(_+1))(n) is simply y(n) + 1. This is what map does. So our formula above becomes y(n+1) = y(n) + 1.
Then trivially, if we know y(n) = n+1, then y(n+1) = (n+1) + 1. Result true at next rank. We get our proof by induction.
I am given a formula f(n) where f(n) is defined, for all non-negative integers, as:
f(0) = 1
f(1) = 1
f(2) = 2
f(2n) = f(n) + f(n + 1) + n (for n > 1)
f(2n + 1) = f(n - 1) + f(n) + 1 (for n >= 1)
My goal is to find, for any given number s, the largest n where f(n) = s. If there is no such n return None. s can be up to 10^25.
I have a brute force solution using both recursion and dynamic programming, but neither is efficient enough. What concepts might help me find an efficient solution to this problem?
I want to add a little complexity analysis and estimate the size of f(n).
If you look at one recursive call of f(n), you notice, that the input n is basically divided by 2 before calling f(n) two times more, where always one call has an even and one has an odd input.
So the call tree is basically a binary tree where always the half of the nodes on a specific depth k provides a summand approx n/2k+1. The depth of the tree is log₂(n).
So the value of f(n) is in total about Θ(n/2 ⋅ log₂(n)).
Just to notice: This holds for even and odd inputs, but for even inputs the value is about an additional summand n/2 bigger. (I use Θ-notation to not have to think to much about some constants).
Now to the complexity:
Naive brute force
To calculate f(n) you have to call f(n) Θ(2log₂(n)) = Θ(n) times.
So if you want to calculate the values of f(n) until you reach s (or notice that there is no n with f(n)=s) you have to calculate f(n) s⋅log₂(s) times, which is in total Θ(s²⋅log(s)).
Dynamic programming
If you store every result of f(n), the time to calculate a f(n) reduces to Θ(1) (but it requires much more memory). So the total time complexity would reduce to Θ(s⋅log(s)).
Notice: Since we know f(n) ≤ f(n+2) for all n, you don't have to sort the values of f(n) and do a binary search.
Using binary search
Algorithm (input is s):
Set l = 1 and r = s
Set n = (l+r)/2 and round it to the next even number
calculate val = f(n).
if val == s then return n.
if val < s then set l = n
else set r = n.
goto 2
If you found a solution, fine. If not: try it again but round in step 2 to odd numbers. If this also does not return a solution, no solution exists at all.
This will take you Θ(log(s)) for the binary search and Θ(s) for the calculation of f(n) each time, so in total you get Θ(s⋅log(s)).
As you can see, this has the same complexity as the dynamic programming solution, but you don't have to save anything.
Notice: r = s does not hold for all s as an initial upper limit. However, if s is big enough, it holds. To be save, you can change the algorithm:
check first, if f(s) < s. If not, you can set l = s and r = 2s (or 2s+1 if it has to be odd).
Can you calculate the value of f(x) which x is from 0 to MAX_SIZE only once time?
what i mean is : calculate the value by DP.
f(0) = 1
f(1) = 1
f(2) = 2
f(3) = 3
f(4) = 7
f(5) = 4
... ...
f(MAX_SIZE) = ???
If the 1st step is illegal, exit. Otherwise, sort the value from small to big.
Such as 1,1,2,3,4,7,...
Now you can find whether exists n satisfied with f(n)=s in O(log(MAX_SIZE)) time.
Unfortunately, you don't mention how fast your algorithm should be. Perhaps you need to find some really clever rewrite of your formula to make it fast enough, in this case you might want to post this question on a mathematics forum.
The running time of your formula is O(n) for f(2n + 1) and O(n log n) for f(2n), according to the Master theorem, since:
T_even(n) = 2 * T(n / 2) + n / 2
T_odd(n) = 2 * T(n / 2) + 1
So the running time for the overall formula is O(n log n).
So if n is the answer to the problem, this algorithm would run in approx. O(n^2 log n), because you have to perform the formula roughly n times.
You can make this a little bit quicker by storing previous results, but of course, this is a tradeoff with memory.
Below is such a solution in Python.
D = {}
def f(n):
if n in D:
return D[n]
if n == 0 or n == 1:
return 1
if n == 2:
return 2
m = n // 2
if n % 2 == 0:
# f(2n) = f(n) + f(n + 1) + n (for n > 1)
y = f(m) + f(m + 1) + m
else:
# f(2n + 1) = f(n - 1) + f(n) + 1 (for n >= 1)
y = f(m - 1) + f(m) + 1
D[n] = y
return y
def find(s):
n = 0
y = 0
even_sol = None
while y < s:
y = f(n)
if y == s:
even_sol = n
break
n += 2
n = 1
y = 0
odd_sol = None
while y < s:
y = f(n)
if y == s:
odd_sol = n
break
n += 2
print(s,even_sol,odd_sol)
find(9992)
This recursive in every iteration for 2n and 2n+1 is increasing values, so if in any moment you will have value bigger, than s, then you can stop your algorithm.
To make effective algorithm you have to find or nice formula, that will calculate value, or make this in small loop, that will be much, much, much more effective, than your recursion. Your recursion is generally O(2^n), where loop is O(n).
This is how loop can be looking:
int[] values = new int[1000];
values[0] = 1;
values[1] = 1;
values[2] = 2;
for (int i = 3; i < values.length /2 - 1; i++) {
values[2 * i] = values[i] + values[i + 1] + i;
values[2 * i + 1] = values[i - 1] + values[i] + 1;
}
And inside this loop add condition of possible breaking it with success of failure.
The F series is defined as
F(0) = 1
F(1) = 1
F(i) = i * F(i - 1) * F(i - 2) for i > 1
The task is to find the number of different divisors for F(i)
This question is from Timus . I tried the following Python but it surely gives a time limit exceeded. This bruteforce approach will not work for a large input since it will cause integer overflow as well.
#!/usr/bin/env python
from math import sqrt
n = int(raw_input())
def f(n):
global arr
if n == 0:
return 1
if n == 1:
return 1
a = 1
b = 1
for i in xrange(2, n + 1):
k = i * a * b
a = b
b = k
return b
x = f(n)
cnt = 0
for i in xrange(1, int(sqrt(x)) + 1):
if x % i == 0:
if x / i == i:
cnt += 1
else:
cnt += 2
print cnt
Any optimization?
EDIT
I have tried the suggestion, and rewrite the solution: (not storing the F(n) value directly, but a list of factors)
#!/usr/bin/env python
#from math import sqrt
T = 10000
primes = range(T)
primes[0] = False
primes[1] = False
primes[2] = True
primes[3] = True
for i in xrange(T):
if primes[i]:
j = i + i
while j < T:
primes[j] = False
j += i
p = []
for i in xrange(T):
if primes[i]:
p.append(i)
n = int(raw_input())
def f(n):
global p
if n == 1:
return 1
a = dict()
b = dict()
for i in xrange(2, n + 1):
c = a.copy()
for y in b.iterkeys():
if c.has_key(y):
c[y] += b[y]
else:
c[y] = b[y]
k = i
for y in p:
d = 0
if k % y == 0:
while k % y == 0:
k /= y
d += 1
if c.has_key(y):
c[y] += d
else:
c[y] = d
if k < y: break
a = b
b = c
k = 1
for i in b.iterkeys():
k = k * (b[i] + 1) % (1000000007)
return k
print f(n)
And it still gives TL5, not faster enough, but this solves the problem of overflow for value F(n).
First see this wikipedia article on the divisor function. In short, if you have a number and you know its prime factors, you can easily calculate the number of divisors (get SO to do TeX math):
$n = \prod_{i=1}^r p_i^{a_i}$
$\sigma_x(n) = \prod_{i=1}^{r} \frac{p_{i}^{(a_{i}+1)x}-1}{p_{i}^x-1}$
Anyway, it's a simple function.
Now, to solve your problem, instead of keeping F(n) as the number itself, keep it as a set of prime factors and exponent sizes. Then the function that calculates F(n) simply takes the two sets for F(n-1) and F(n-2), sums the exponents of the same prime factors in both sets (assuming zero for nonexistent ones) and additionally adds the set of prime factors and exponent sizes for the number i. This means that you need another simple1 function to find the prime factors of i.
Computing F(n) this way, you just need to apply the above formula (taken from Wikipedia) to the set and there's your value. Note also that F(n) can quickly get very large. This solution also avoids usage of big-num libraries (since no prime factor nor its exponent is likely to go beyond 4 billion2).
1 Of course this is not so simple for arbitrarily large i, otherwise we wouldn't have any form of security right now, but for your application it should be simple enough.
2 Well it might. If you happen to figure out a simple formula answering your question given any n, then large ns would also be possible in the test case, for which this algorithm is likely going to give a time limit exceeded.
That is a fun problem.
The F(n) grow extremely fast. Since F(n) <= F(n+1) for all n, we have
F(n+2) > F(n)²
for all n, and thus
F(n) > 2^(2^(n/2-1))
for n > 2. That crude estimate already shows that one cannot store these numbers for any but the smallest n. By that F(100) requires more than (2^49) bits of storage, and 128 GB are only 2^40 bits. Actually, the prime factorisation of F(100) is
*Fiborial> fiborials !! 100
[(2,464855623252387472061),(3,184754360086075580988),(5,56806012190322167100)
,(7,20444417903078359662),(11,2894612619136622614),(13,1102203323977318975)
,(17,160545601976374531),(19,61312348893415199),(23,8944533909832252),(29,498454445374078)
,(31,190392553955142),(37,10610210054141),(41,1548008760101),(43,591286730489)
,(47,86267571285),(53,4807526976),(59,267914296),(61,102334155),(67,5702887),(71,832040)
,(73,317811),(79,17711),(83,2584),(89,144),(97,3)]
and that would require about 9.6 * 10^20 (roughly 2^70) bits - a little less than half of them are trailing zeros, but even storing the numbers à la floating point numbers with a significand and an exponent doesn't bring the required storage down far enough.
So instead of storing the numbers themselves, one can consider the prime factorisation. That also allows an easier computation of the number of divisors, since
k k
divisors(n) = ∏ (e_i + 1) if n = ∏ p_i^e_i
i=1 i=1
Now, let us investigate the prime factorisations of the F(n) a little. We begin with the
Lemma: A prime p divides F(n) if and only if p <= n.
That is easily proved by induction: F(0) = F(1) = 1 is not divisible by any prime, and there are no primes <= 1.
Now suppose that n > 1 and
A(k) = The prime factors of F(k) are exactly the primes <= k
holds for k < n. Then, since
F(n) = n * F(n-1) * F(n-2)
the set prime factors of F(n) is the union of the sets of prime factors of n, F(n-1) and F(n-2).
By the induction hypothesis, the set of prime factors of F(k) is
P(k) = { p | 1 < p <= k, p prime }
for k < n. Now, if n is composite, all prime factors of n are samller than n, hence the set of prime factors of F(n) is P(n-1), but since n is not prime, P(n) = P(n-1). If, on the other hand, n is prime, the set of prime factors of F(n) is
P(n-1) ∪ {n} = P(n)
With that, let us see how much work it is to track the prime factorisation of F(n) at once, and update the list/dictionary for each n (I ignore the problem of finding the factorisation of n, that doesn't take long for the small n involved).
The entry for the prime p appears first for n = p, and is then updated for each further n, altogether it is created/updated N - p + 1 times for F(N). Thus there are
∑ (N + 1 - p) = π(N)*(N+1) - ∑ p ≈ N²/(2*log N)
p <= N p <= N
updates in total. For N = 10^6, about 3.6 * 10^10 updates, that is way more than can be done in the allowed time (0.5 seconds).
So we need a different approach. Let us look at one prime p alone, and follow the exponent of p in the F(n).
Let v_p(k) be the exponent of p in the prime factorisation of k. Then we have
v_p(F(n)) = v_p(n) + v_p(F(n-1)) + v_p(F(n-2))
and we know that v_p(F(k)) = 0 for k < p. So (assuming p is not too small to understand what goes on):
v_p(F(n)) = v_p(n) + v_p(F(n-1)) + v_p(F(n-2))
v_p(F(p)) = 1 + 0 + 0 = 1
v_p(F(p+1)) = 0 + 1 + 0 = 1
v_p(F(p+2)) = 0 + 1 + 1 = 2
v_p(F(p+3)) = 0 + 2 + 1 = 3
v_p(F(p+4)) = 0 + 3 + 2 = 5
v_p(F(p+5)) = 0 + 5 + 3 = 8
So we get Fibonacci numbers for the exponents, v_p(F(p+k)) = Fib(k+1) - for a while, since later multiples of p inject further powers of p,
v_p(F(2*p-1)) = 0 + Fib(p-1) + Fib(p-2) = Fib(p)
v_p(F(2*p)) = 1 + Fib(p) + Fib(p-1) = 1 + Fib(p+1)
v_p(F(2*p+1)) = 0 + (1 + Fib(p+1)) + Fib(p) = 1 + Fib(p+2)
v_p(F(2*p+2)) = 0 + (1 + Fib(p+2)) + (1 + Fib(p+1)) = 2 + Fib(p+3)
v_p(F(2*p+3)) = 0 + (2 + Fib(p+3)) + (1 + Fib(p+2)) = 3 + Fib(p+4)
but the additional powers from 2*p also follow a nice Fibonacci pattern, and we have v_p(F(2*p+k)) = Fib(p+k+1) + Fib(k+1) for 0 <= k < p.
For further multiples of p, we get another Fibonacci summand in the exponent, so
n/p
v_p(F(n)) = ∑ Fib(n + 1 - k*p)
k=1
-- until n >= p², because multiples of p² contribute two to the exponent, and the corresponding summand would have to be multiplied by 2; for multiples of p³, by 3 etc.
One can also split the contributions of multiples of higher powers of p, so one would get one Fibonacci summand due to it being a multiple of p, one for it being a multiple of p², one for being a multiple of p³ etc, that yields
n/p n/p² n/p³
v_p(F(n)) = ∑ Fib(n + 1 - k*p) + ∑ Fib(n + 1 - k*p²) + ∑ Fib(n + 1 - k*p³) + ...
k=1 k=1 k=1
Now, in particular for the smaller primes, these sums have a lot of terms, and computing them that way would be slow. Fortunately, there is a closed formula for sums of Fibonacci numbers whose indices are an arithmetic progression, for 0 < a <= s
m
∑ Fib(a + k*s) = (Fib(a + (m+1)*s) - (-1)^s * Fib(a + m*s) - (-1)^a * Fib(s - a) - Fib(a)) / D(s)
k=0
where
D(s) = Luc(s) - 1 - (-1)^s
and Luc(k) is the k-th Lucas number, Luc(k) = Fib(k+1) + Fib(k-1).
For our purposes, we only need the Fibonacci numbers modulo 10^9 + 7, then the division must be replaced by a multiplication with the modular inverse of D(s).
Using these facts, the number of divisors of F(n) modulo 10^9+7 can be computed in the allowed time for n <= 10^6 (about 0.06 seconds on my old 32-bit box), although with Python, on the testing machines, further optimisations might be necessary.
I am refreshing on Master Theorem a bit and I am trying to figure out the running time of an algorithm that solves a problem of size n by recursively solving 2 subproblems of size n-1 and combine solutions in constant time.
So the formula is:
T(N) = 2T(N - 1) + O(1)
But I am not sure how can I formulate the condition of master theorem.
I mean we don't have T(N/b) so is b of the Master Theorem formula in this case b=N/(N-1)?
If yes since obviously a > b^k since k=0 and is O(N^z) where z=log2 with base of (N/N-1) how can I make sense out of this? Assuming I am right so far?
ah, enough with the hints. the solution is actually quite simple. z-transform both sides, group the terms, and then inverse z transform to get the solution.
first, look at the problem as
x[n] = a x[n-1] + c
apply z transform to both sides (there are some technicalities with respect to the ROC, but let's ignore that for now)
X(z) = (a X(z) / z) + (c z / (z-1))
solve for X(z) to get
X(z) = c z^2 / [(z - 1) * (z-a)]
now observe that this formula can be re-written as:
X(z) = r z / (z-1) + s z / (z-a)
where r = c/(1-a) and s = - a c / (1-a)
Furthermore, observe that
X(z) = P(z) + Q(z)
where P(z) = r z / (z-1) = r / (1 - (1/z)), and Q(z) = s z / (z-a) = s / (1 - a (1/z))
apply inverse z-transform to get that:
p[n] = r u[n]
and
q[n] = s exp(log(a)n) u[n]
where log denotes the natural log and u[n] is the unit (Heaviside) step function (i.e. u[n]=1 for n>=0 and u[n]=0 for n<0).
Finally, by linearity of z-transform:
x[n] = (r + s exp(log(a) n))u[n]
where r and s are as defined above.
so relabeling back to your original problem,
T(n) = a T(n-1) + c
then
T(n) = (c/(a-1))(-1+a exp(log(a) n))u[n]
where exp(x) = e^x, log(x) is the natural log of x, and u[n] is the unit step function.
What does this tell you?
Unless I made a mistake, T grows exponentially with n. This is effectively an exponentially increasing function under the reasonable assumption that a > 1. The exponent is govern by a (more specifically, the natural log of a).
One more simplification, note that exp(log(a) n) = exp(log(a))^n = a^n:
T(n) = (c/(a-1))(-1+a^(n+1))u[n]
so O(a^n) in big O notation.
And now here is the easy way:
put T(0) = 1
T(n) = a T(n-1) + c
T(1) = a * T(0) + c = a + c
T(2) = a * T(1) + c = a*a + a * c + c
T(3) = a * T(2) + c = a*a*a + a * a * c + a * c + c
....
note that this creates a pattern. specifically:
T(n) = sum(a^j c^(n-j), j=0,...,n)
put c = 1 gives
T(n) = sum(a^j, j=0,...,n)
this is geometric series, which evaluates to:
T(n) = (1-a^(n+1))/(1-a)
= (1/(1-a)) - (1/(1-a)) a^n
= (1/(a-1))(-1 + a^(n+1))
for n>=0.
Note that this formula is the same as given above for c=1 using the z-transform method. Again, O(a^n).
Don't even think about Master's Theorem. You can only use Masther's Theorem when you're given master's theorem when b > 1 from the general form T(n) = aT(n/b) + f(n).
Instead, think of it this way. You have a recursive call that decrements the size of input, n, by 1 at each recursive call. And at each recursive call, the cost is constant O(1). The input size will decrement until it reaches 1. Then you add up all the costs that you used to make the recursive calls.
How many are they? n. So this would take O(2^n).
Looks like you can't formulate this problem in terms of the Master Theorem.
A good start is to draw the recursion tree to understand the pattern, then prove it with the substitution method. You can also expand the formula a couple of times and see where it leads.
See also this question which solves 2 subproblems instead of a:
Time bound for recursive algorithm with constant combination time
May be you could think of it this way
when
n = 1, T(1) = 1
n = 2, T(2) = 2
n = 3, T(3) = 4
n = 4, T(4) = 8
n = 5, T(5) = 16
It is easy to see that this is a geometric series 1 + 2+ 4+ 8 + 16..., the sum of which is
first term (ratio^n - 1)/(ratio - 1). For this series it is
1 * (2^n - 1)/(2 - 1) = 2^n - 1.
The dominating term here is 2^n, therefore the function belongs to Theta(2^n). You could verify it by doing a lim(n->inf) [2^n / (2^n - 1)] = +ve constant.
Therefore the function belongs to Big Theta (2^n)