Update: I'm still looking for a solution without using something from outside sources.
Given: T(n) = T(n/10) + T(an) + n for some a, and that: T(n) = 1 if n < 10, I want to check if the following is possible (for some a values, and I want to find the smallest possible a):
For every c > 0 there is n0 > 0 such that for every n > n0, T(n) >= c * n
I tried to open the function declaration step by step but it got really complicated and I got stuck since I see no advancement at all.
Here is what I did: (Sorry for adding an image, that's because I wrote a lot on word and I cant paste it as text)
Any help please?
Invoking Akra–Bazzi, g(n) = n¹, so the critical exponent is p = 1, so we want (1/10)¹ + a¹ = 1, hence a = 9/10.
Intuitively, this is like the mergesort recurrence: with linear overhead at each call, if we don't reduce the total size of the subproblems, we'll end up with an extra log in the running time (which will overtake any constant c).
Requirement:
For every c > 0 there is n0 > 0 such that for every n > n0, T(n) >= c*n
By substituting the recurrence in the inequality and solving for a, you will get:
T(n) >= c*n
(c*n/10) + (c*a*n) + n >= c*n
a >= 0.9 - (1/c)
Since our desired outcome is for all c (treat c as infinity), we get a >= 0.9. Therefore, smallest value of a is 0.9 which will satisfy T(n) >= c*n for all c.
Another perspective: draw a recursion tree and count the work done per level. The work done in each layer of the tree will be (1/10 + a) as much as the work of the level above it. (Do you see why?)
If (1/10 + a) < 1, this means the work per level is decaying geometrically, so the total work done will sum to some constant multiple of n (whose leading coefficient depends on a). If (1 / 10 + a) ≥ 1, then the work done per level stays the same or grows from one level to the next, so the total work done now depends (at least) on the number of layers in the tree, which is Θ(log n) because the subproblems sizes are dropping by a constant from one layer to the next and that can’t happen more than Θ(log n) times. So once (1 / 10 + a) = 1 your runtime suddenly is Ω(n log n) = ω(n).
(This is basically the reasoning behind the Master Theorem, just applied to non-uniform subproblems sizes, which is where the Akra-Bazzi theorem comes from.)
Related
I am learning algorithm analysis. In a book I read that 2^2n = O(2^n) is not true. though I know that means we can't find a c such that : 2^2n<=c(2^n). but if we put n=5 and c=10^6 the equation will be right. can you please give me hint. what am I doing wrong?
For 2^2n = O(2^n) to hold you would have to find one c such that 2^2n<=c(2^n) for all n > n0. Your example works only for small n. Once n reaches a point where 2^n > c the inequality does no longer hold.
Let's just work out the math: 2^2n = (2^2)^n = 4^n, since a^bc = (a^b)^c.
The question is not what happens for specific values, but what is the effect when n gets one larger, or even twice as large.
If we replace n with n + 1, you get 2^2(n + 1) = 2^(2n + 2) = 2^2 * 2^2n = 4 * 2^2n. So the result becomes 4 times larger.
Solve: T(n)=T(n-1)+T(n/2)+n.
I tried solving this using recursion trees.There are two branches T(n-1) and T(n/2) respectively. T(n-1) will go to a higher depth. So we get O(2^n). Is this idea correct?
This is a very strange recurrence for a CS class. This is because from one point of view: T(n) = T(n-1) + T(n/2) + n is bigger than T(n) = T(n-1) + n which is O(n^2).
But from another point of view, the functional equation has an exact solution: T(n) = -2(n + 2). You can easily see that this is the exact solution by substituting it back to the equation: -2(n + 2) = -2(n + 1) + -(n + 2) + n. I am not sure whether this is the only solution.
Here is how I got it: T(n) = T(n-1) + T(n/2) + n. Because you calculate things for very big n, than n-1 is almost the same as n. So you can rewrite it as T(n) = T(n) + T(n/2) + n which is T(n/2) + n = 0, which is equal to T(n) = - 2n, so it is linear. This was counter intuitive to me (the minus sign here), but armed with this solution, I tried T(n) = -2n + a and found the value of a.
I believe you are right. The recurrence relation will always split into two parts, namely T(n-1) and T(n/2). Looking at these two, it is clear that n-1 decreases in value slower than n/2, or in other words, you will have more branches from the n-1 portion of the tree. Despite this, when considering big-o, it is useful to just consider the 'worst-case' scenario, which in this case is that both sides of the tree decreases by n-1 (since this decreases more slowly and you would need to have more branches). In all, you would need to split the relation into two a total of n times, hence you are right to say O(2^n).
Your reasoning is correct, but you give away far too much. (For example, it is also correct to say that 2x^3+4=O(2^n), but that’s not as informative as 2x^3+4=O(x^3).)
The first thing we want to do is get rid of the inhomogeneous term n. This suggests that we may look for a solution of the form T(n)=an+b. Substituting that in, we find:
an+b = a(n-1)+b + an/2+b + n
which reduces to
0 = (a/2+1)n + (b-a)
implying that a=-2 and b=a=-2. Therefore, T(n)=-2n-2 is a solution to the equation.
We now want to find other solutions by subtracting off the solution we’ve already found. Let’s define U(n)=T(n)+2n+2. Then the equation becomes
U(n)-2n-2 = U(n-1)-2(n-1)-2 + U(n/2)-2(n/2)-2 + n
which reduces to
U(n) = U(n-1) + U(n/2).
U(n)=0 is an obvious solution to this equation, but how do the non-trivial solutions to this equation behave?
Let’s assume that U(n)∈Θ(n^k) for some k>0, so that U(n)=cn^k+o(n^k). This makes the equation
cn^k+o(n^k) = c(n-1)^k+o((n-1)^k) + c(n/2)^k+o((n/2)^k)
Now, (n-1)^k=n^k+Θ(n^{k-1}), so that the above becomes
cn^k+o(n^k) = cn^k+Θ(cn^{k-1})+o(n^k+Θ(n^{k-1})) + cn^k/2^k+o((n/2)^k)
Absorbing the lower order terms and subtracting the common cn^k, we arrive at
o(n^k) = cn^k/2^k
But this is false because the right hand side grows faster than the left. Therefore, U(n-1)+U(n/2) grows faster than U(n), which means that U(n) must grow faster than our assumed Θ(n^k). Since this is true for any k, U(n) must grow faster than any polynomial.
A good example of something that grows faster than any polynomial is an exponential function. Consequently, let’s assume that U(n)∈Θ(c^n) for some c>1, so that U(n)=ac^n+o(c^n). This makes the equation
ac^n+o(c^n) = ac^{n-1}+o(c^{n-1}) + ac^{n/2}+o(c^{n/2})
Rearranging and using some order of growth math, this becomes
c^n = o(c^n)
This is false (again) because the left hand side grows faster than the right. Therefore,
U(n) grows faster than U(n-1)+U(n/2), which means that U(n) must grow slower than our assumed Θ(c^n). Since this is true for any c>1, U(n) must grow more slowly than any exponential.
This puts us into the realm of quasi-polynomials, where ln U(n)∈O(log^c n), and subexponentials, where ln U(n)∈O(n^ε). Either of these mean that we want to look at L(n):=ln U(n), where the previous paragraphs imply that L(n)∈ω(ln n)∩o(n). Taking the natural log of our equation, we have
ln U(n) = ln( U(n-1) + U(n/2) ) = ln U(n-1) + ln(1+ U(n/2)/U(n-1))
or
L(n) = L(n-1) + ln( 1 + e^{-L(n-1)+L(n/2)} ) = L(n-1) + e^{-(L(n-1)-L(n/2))} + Θ(e^{-2(L(n-1)-L(n/2))})
So everything comes down to: how fast does L(n-1)-L(n/2) grow? We know that L(n-1)-L(n/2)→∞, since otherwise L(n)∈Ω(n). And it’s likely that L(n)-L(n/2) will be just as useful, since L(n)-L(n-1)∈o(1) is much smaller than L(n-1)-L(n/2).
Unfortunately, this is as far as I’m able to take the problem. I don’t see a good way to control how fast L(n)-L(n/2) grows (and I’ve been staring at this for months). The only thing I can end with is to quote another answer: “a very strange recursion for a CS class”.
I think we can look at it this way:
T(n)=2T(n/2)+n < T(n)=T(n−1)+T(n/2)+n < T(n)=2T(n−1)+n
If we apply the master's theorem, then:
Θ(n∗logn) < Θ(T(n)) < Θ(2n)
Remember that T(n) = T(n-1) + T(n/2) + n being (asymptotically) bigger than T(n) = T(n-1) + n only applies for functions which are asymptotically positive. In that case, we have T = Ω(n^2).
Note that T(n) = -2(n + 2) is a solution to the functional equation, but it doesn't interest us, since it is not an asymptotically positive solution, hence the notations of O don't have meaningful application.
You can also easily check that T(n) = O(2^n). (Refer to yyFred solution, if needed)
If you try using the definition of O for functions of the type n^a(lgn)^b, with a(>=2) and b positive constants, you see that this is not a possible solution too by the Substitution Method.
In fact, the only function that allows a proof with the Substitution Method is exponential, but we know that this recursion doesn't grow as fast as T(n) = 2T(n-1) + n, so if T(n) = O(a^n), we can have a < 2.
Assume that T(m) <= c(a^m), for some constant c, real and positive. Our hypothesis is that this relation is valid for all m < n. Trying to prove this for n, we get:
T(n) <= (1/a+1/a^(n/2))c(a^n) + n
we can get rid of the n easily by changing the hypothesis by a term of lower order. What is important here is that:
1/a+1/a^(n/2) <= 1
a^(n/2+1)-a^(n/2)-a >= 0
Changing variables:
a^(N+1)-a^N-a >= 0
We want to find a bond as tight as possible, so we are searching for the lowest a possible. The inequality we found above accept solutions of a which are pretty close to 1, but is a allowed to get arbitrarily close to 1? The answer is no, let a be of the form a = (1+1/N). Substituting a at the inequality and applying the limit N -> INF:
e-e-1 >= 0
which is a absurd. Hence, the inequality above has some fixed number N* as maximum solution, which can be found computationally. A quick Python program allowed me to find that a < 1+1e-45 (with a little extrapolation), so we can at least be sure that:
T(n) = ο((1+1e-45)^n)
T(n)=T(n-1)+T(n/2)+n is the same as T(n)=T(n)+T(n/2)+n since we are solving for extremely large values of n. T(n)=T(n)+T(n/2)+n can only be true if T(n/2) + n = 0. That means T(n) = T(n) + 0 ~= O(n)
How do you work this out? do you get c first which is the ratio of the two functions then with the ratio find the range of n ? how can you tell ? please explain i'm really lost, Thanks.
Example 1: Prove that running time T(n) = n^3 + 20n + 1 is O(n^3)
Proof: by the Big-Oh definition,
T(n) is O(n^3) if T(n) ≤ c·n^3 for some n ≥ n0 .
Let us check this condition:
if n^3 + 20n + 1 ≤ c·n^3 then 1 + 20/n^2 + 1/n^3 <=c .
Therefore,
the Big-Oh condition holds for n ≥ n0 = 1 and c ≥ 22 (= 1 + 20 + 1). Larger
values of n0 result in smaller factors c (e.g., for n0 = 10 c ≥ 1.201 and so on) but in
any case the above statement is valid.
I think the trick you're seeing is that you aren't thinking of LARGE numbers. Hence, let's take a counter example:
T(n) = n^4 + n
and let's assume that we think it's O(N^3) instead of O(N^4). What you could see is
c = n + 1/n^2
which means that c, a constant, is actually c(n), a function dependent upon n. Taking N to a really big number shows that no matter what, c == c(n), a function of n, so it can't be O(N^3).
What you want is in the limit as N goes to infinity, everything but a constant remains:
c = 1 + 1/n^3
Now you can easily say, it is still c(n)! As N gets really, really big 1/n^3 goes to zero. Hence, with very large N in the case of declaring T(n) in O(N^4) time, c == 1 or it is a constant!
Does that help?
In this example: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2%5E%281000000000%2F2%29+%3C+%283%2F2%29%5E1000000000
I noticed that those two equations are pretty similar no matter how high you go in n. Do all algorithms with a constant to the n fall in the same time complexity category? Such as 2^n, 3^n, 4^n, etc.
They are in the same category, This does not mean their complexity is the same. They are exponential running time algorithms. Obviously 2^n < 4^n
We can see 4^n/2^n = 2^2n/2^n = 2^n
This means 4^n algorithm exponential slower(2^n times) than 2^n
The same thing happens with 3^n which is 1.5^n.
But this does not mean 2^n is something far less than 4^n, It is still exponential and will not be feasible when n>50.
Note this is happening due to n is not in the base. If they were in the base like this:
4n^k vs n^k then this 2 algorithms are asymptotically the same(as long as n is relatively small than actually data size). They would be different by linear time, just like O(n) vs c * O(n)
The time complexities O(an) and O(bn) are not the same if 1 < a < b. As a quick proof, we can use the formal definition of big-O notation to show that bn ≠ O(an).
This works by contradiction. Suppose that bn = O(an) and that 1 < a < b. Then there must be some c and n0 such that for any n ≥ n0, we have that bn ≤ c · an. This means that bn / an ≤ c for any n ≥ n0. Since b > a, it should start to become clear that this is impossible - as n grows larger, bn / an = (b / a)n will get larger and larger. In particular, if we pick any n ≥ n0 such that n > logb / a c, then we will have that
(b / a)n > (b / a)log(b/a) c = c
So, if we pick n = max{n0, c + 1}, then it's not true that bn ≤ c · an, contradicting our assumption that bn = O(an).
This means, in particular, that O(2n) ≠ O(1.5n) and that O(3n) ≠ O(2n). This is why when using big-O notation, it's still necessary to specify the base of any exponents that end up getting used.
One more thing to notice - although it looks like 21000000000/2 is approximately 1.41000000000/2, notice that these are totally different numbers. The first is of the form 10108.1ish and the second of the form 10108.2ish. That might not seem like a big difference, but it's absolutely colossal. Take, for example, 10101 and 10102. This first number is 1010, which is 10 billion and takes ten digits to write out. The second is 10100, one googol, which takes 100 digits to write out. There's a huge difference between them - the first of them is close to the world population, while the second is about the total number of atoms in the universe!
Hope this helps!
How to calculate complexity when there are more than one recursive calls?
Such as in this problem.
F(n)
{
if (n is 1)
return;
F(n/2) //Call 1
F(n/3) //Call 2
F(n/6) //Call 3
}
You just need to solve the equation,
T(n)=T(n/2)+T(n/3)+T(n/6)+O(1)
Now as T(n/2)>T(n/3), we can instead solve for
T(n)=3T(n/2)+O(1)
Using master's theorem, T(n)=O(n^(log(base 2)3))=O(n^1.58)
Note that there might be better solution but as this is Big O notation, this is valid too
Interesting question.
I believe I can prove that the complexity of this function is O(nc) for any c > 1.
Recall the definition of big-O notation. We say a function g(n) is O(f(n)) if there exist constants k and n' such that g(n) < k*f(n) for all n > n'. (Colloquially, g(n) is bounded above by f(n) for sufficiently large n, ignoring constant factors.)
Pick any c > 1, and observe that for sufficiently large n,
1 > (1/2)c + (1/3)c + (1/6)c + 1/nc
This is easy to see because 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/6 = 1, and (1/2)c < 1/2 etc. because c > 1. And when n is big enough, 1/nc is arbitrarily small.
Multiply through by nc, to get that for sufficiently large n:
nc > (n/2)c + (n/3)c + (n/6)c + 1
Therefore, if the running time of F(m) is bounded above by mc for m=n/2, m=n/3, and m=n/6, then the running time of F(n) is bounded above by nc. Result follows by induction.
So although I was wrong that this function is O(n), it is arbitrarily close... In the sense that for any positive value epsilon, no matter how small, the function is O(n1+epsilon).
...
In general, for this type of question, I think you want to guess solutions of the form nc and then try to place a bound on c. This is essentially how the Master Theorem itself works.