I need some help with these functions and if the run-time complexities for it are correct, I'm learning the concepts currently in class and I've looked at videos and such but I can't find any videos explaining these tougher ones, so I'm hoping I can get some help here if I'm doing it right.
sum = 0
for i = 1 to n*n
for j = 1 to i * i * i
sum++
For this one I am thinking the answer is O(n^5) because the outer loop is running n^2 times while the inner loop will be running n^3 times and together that'll make n^5
sum = 0
for i = 1 to n^2 // O(n^2) times
j = i
while j > 0 //(O(n+1) since the while loop will check one more time if the loop is valid
sum++
j = (j div 5)
for this run time I'm assuming its going to run O(n^3 + 1) times since outer loop is running n^2 times and while loop will be n+1 and together thats n^3 + 1.
for i = 1 to n // n times
for j = 1 to n { // n^2 times
C[i,j] = 0
for k = 1 to n // n^3 times?
C[i,j] = C[i,j] + A[i,k]*B[k,j]
}
so for this one I'm thinking it's O(n^6) but I am really iffy on this one. I have seen some examples online where people will figure the loop to be O(n log n) but I am totally lost on how that is found. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Your understanding of the first and the third algorithms looks correct. The second, however, is totally off. The inner loop
while j > 0 //(O(n+1) since the while loop will check one more time if the loop is valid
sum++
j = (j div 5)
starts with j being equal to i and divides j by 5 at each iteration, so it runs log(i) times. In turn, i varies from 1 to n^2, and the total execution time is a
sum[i: 1..n^2] log(i)
By the property of a logarithm this sum is equal to log ((n^2)!). Using Stirling approximation for factorial one obtains the time complexity being O(n^2 log(n^2)) = O(2 n^2 log(n)) = O(n^2 log(n)).
Related
To start off I found this stackoverflow question that references the time complexity to be O(n^2), but it doesn't answer the question of why O(n^2) is the time complexity but instead asks for an example of such an algorithm. From my understanding an algorithm that runs 1+2+3+...+n times would be
less than O(n^2). For example, take this function
function(n: number) {
let sum = 0;
for(let i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for(let j = 0; j < i+1; j++) {
sum += 1;
}
}
return sum;
}
Here are some input and return values
num
sum
1
1
2
3
3
6
4
10
5
15
6
21
7
28
From this table you can see that this algorithm runs in less than O(n^2) but more than O(n). I also realize than algorithm that runs 1+(1+2)+(1+2+3)+...+(1+2+3+...+n) is true O(n^2) time complexity. For the algorithm stated in the problem, do we just say it runs in O(n^2) because it runs more than O(log n) times?
It's known that 1 + 2 + ... + n has a short form of n * (n + 1) / 2. Even if you didn't know that, you have to consider that, when i gets to n, the inner loop runs at most n times. So you have exactly n times (for outer loop i), each running at most n times (for inner loop j), so the O(n^2) becomes more apparent.
I agree that the complexity would be exactly n^2 if the inner loop also ran from 0 to n, so you have your reasons to think that a loop i from 0 to n and another loop j from 0 to i has to perform better and that's true, but with big Oh notation you're actually measuring the degree of algorithm's complexity, not the exact number of operations.
p.s. O(log n) is usually achieved when you split the main problem into sub-problems.
I think you should interpret the table differently. The O(N^2) complexity says that if you double the input N, the runtime should quadruple (take 4 times as long). In this case, the function(n: number) returns a number mirroring its runtime. I use f(N) as a short for it.
So say N goes from 1 to 2, which means the input has doubled (2/1 = 2). The runtime then has gone from f(1) to f(2), which means it has increased f(2)/f(1) = 3/1 = 3 times. That is not 4 times, but the Big-O complexity measure is asymptotic, dealing with the situation where N approaches infinity. If we test another input doubling from the table, we have f(6)/f(3) = 21/6 = 3.5. It is already closer to 4.
Let us now stray outside the table and try more doublings with bigger N. For example we have f(200)/f(100) = 20100/5050 = 3.980 and f(5000)/f(2500) = 12502500/3126250 = 3.999. The trend is clear. As N approaches infinity, a doubled input tends toward a quadrupled runtime. And that is the hallmark of O(N^2).
I have some exercises of complexity analysis of double loops, and I don't know if I'm doing them correctly.
for i = 1 to n do
j = i
while j < n do
j = 2∗j
end while
end for
My answer on this is O(n^2), because the first loop is running O(n) times and the inner one is doing O(n/2) iterations for the "worst" iteration of the outer loop. So O(n) * O(n/2) = O(n^2).
Also looking a bit further, I think I can say that the inner loops is doing a partial sum that is O(n/2) + O(n-1) + ... + O(1), and this is also O(n)
for i = 1 to n do
j = n
while i∗i < j do
j = j − 1
end while
end for
Again the outer loop is O(n), and the inner loop is doing O(sqrt(n)) in the worst iteration, so here I think it's O(n*sqrt(n)) but I'm unsure about this one.
for i = 1 to n do
j = 2
while j < i do
j = j ∗j
end while
end for
Here the outer loop is O(n) and the inner loop is doing O(logn) work for the worst case. Hence I think this is O(nlogn)
i = 2
while (i∗i < n) and (n mod i != 0) do
i = i + 1
end while
Finally, I don't know how to make sense of this one. Because of the modulus operator.
My questions are:
Did I do anything wrong in the first 3 examples?
Is the "worst-case approach" for the inner loops I'm doing correct?
How should I approach the last exercise?
First Question:
The inner loop takes log(n/i) time. an upper bound is O(log(n)) giving a total time of O(n*log(n)). a lower bound is log(n/2) and sum only on the last n/2 terms, giving a total complexity of n/2 * log(n/2) = n/2*log(n) - n/2 = O(n * log(n)) and we get that the bound O(n* log(n)) is tight (we have a theta bound).
Second Question:
The inner loop takes n - i^2 time (and O(1) if i^2 >= n). Notice that for i >= sqrt(n) the inner loop takes O(1) time so we can run the outer loop only for i in 1:sqrt(n) and add O(n) to the result. An upper bound is n for the inner loop, giving a total time of O(n * sqrt(n) + n) = O(n ^ (3/2)). A lower bound is 3/4 * n for the inner loop and summing only for i's up to sqrt(n) / 2 (so that i^2 < n / 4 and n - i ^ 2 > 3/4 * n ) and we get a total time of Ω(sqrt(n) / 2 * n * 3/4 + n) = Ω(n^(3/2)) thus the bound O(n * sqrt(n)) is indeed tight.
Third Question:
In this one j is starting from 2 and we square it until it reaches i. after t steps of the inner loop, j is equal to 2^(2^t). we reach i when j = 2 ^ (log(i)) = 2 ^ (2 ^ log(log(i))), i.e., after t = log(log(i)) steps. We can again give an upper bound and lower bound similarly to the previous questions, and get the tight bound O(n * log(log(n))).
Forth Question:
The complexity can vary between 2 = O(1) and sqrt(n), depending on the factorization of n. In the worst case, n is a perfect square, giving a complexity of O(sqrt(n)
To answer your questions at the end:
1. Yes, you have done some things wrong. You have reached wrong answers in 1 and 3 and in 2 your result is right but the reasoning is flawed; the inner loop is not O(sqrt(n)), as you have already seen in my analysis.
2. Considering the "worst case" for the inner loop is good, as it's giving you an upper bound (which is mostly accurate in this kind of questions), but to establish a tight bound you must also show a lower bound, usually by taking only the higher terms and lowering them to the first, as I did in some of the examples. Another way to prove tight bounds is to use formulas of known series such as 1 + ... + n = n * (n + 1) / 2, giving an immediate bound of O(n^2) instead of getting the lower bound by 1 + ... + n >= n/2 + ... + n >= n/2 + ... + n/2 = n/2 * n/2 = n^/4 = Ω(n^2).
3. Answered above.
For the first one in the inner loop we have:
i, 2*i, 4*i, ... , (2^k)*i where (2^k)*i < n. So k < logn - logi. The outer loop as you said repeats n+1 times. In total we have this sum:
Which equals to
Therefore I think the complexity should be O(nlogn).
For the second one we have:
For third one:
So I think it should be O(log(n!))
For the last one, if n is even, it will be O(1) because we don't enter the loop. But the worst case is when n is odd and is not divisible by any of the square numbers, then I think it should be
I was asked if what time complexity if this:
What is the time complexity (with respect of n) of this algorithm:
k=0
for(i = n / 2 ; i < n ; i++ ) {
for( j=0 ; j < i ; j++)
k = k + n / 2
}
choices was : a. O(n) b. O(n/2) c. O(n log(n) and d. O(n^2)
can have a multiple answers.
i know the algorithm above is d. O(n^2) but i came with with a. O(n) since it is looking for complexity of n only?.
if you are to have this question. how would you answer it.?? im so curious about the answer.
The answer is O(n²).
This is easy to understand. I will try to make you understand it.
See, the outer for loop block is executed n - n/2 = n/2 times.
Of course it depends whether the number n is even or odd. If it's even then the outer loop is executed n/2 times. If it's odd then it's executed for (n-1)/2 times.
But for time complexity, we don't consider this. We just assume that the outer for loop is executed n/2 times where i starts from n/2 and ends at n - 1 (because the terminating condition is i < n and not i <= n).
For each iteration of the outer loop, the inner loop executes i times.
For example, for every iteration, inner loop starts with j = 0 to j = i - 1. This means that it executes i times (not i - 1 times because j starts from 0 and not from 1).
Therefore, for 1st iteration the inner loop is executed i = n / 2 times. i = n / 2 + 1 for 2nd iteration and so on upto i = n - 1 times.
Now, the total no. of times the inner loop executes is n/2 + (n/2 + 1) + (n/2 + 2) + ... + (n - 2) + (n - 1). It's simple math that this sums up to (3n² - n)/2 times.
So, the time complexity becomes O((3n² - n)/2).
But we ignore the n term because n² > n and the constant terms because for every n they will remain the same.
Therefore, the final time complexity is O(n²).
Hope this helps you understand.
This question is based off of this resource http://algs4.cs.princeton.edu/14analysis.
Can someone break down why Exercise 6 letter b is linear? The outer loop seems to be increasing i by a factor of 2 each time, so I would assume it was logarithmic...
From the link:
int sum = 0;
for (int n = N; n > 0; n /= 2)
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
sum++;
This is a geometric series.
The inner loops runs i iterations per iteration of the outer loop, and the outer loop decreases by half each time.
So, summing it up gives you:
n + n/2 + n/4 + ... + 1
This is geometric series, with r=1/2 and a=n - that converges to a/(1-r)=n/(1/2)=2n, so:
T(n) <= 2n
And since 2n is in O(n) - the algorithm runs in linear time.
This is a perfect example to see that complexity is NOT achieved by multiplying the complexity of each nested loop (that would have got you O(nlogn)), but by actually analyzing how many iterations are needed.
Yes its simple
See the value of n is decreasing by half each time and I runs n times.
So for the first time i goes from 1 to n
next time 0 to n/2
and hence 0 to n/k on kth term.
Now total time inner loop would run = Log(n)
So its a GP the number of times i is running.
with terms
n,n/2,n/4,n/8....0
so we can find the sum of the GP
2^(long(n) +1)-1 / (2-1)
2^(long(n)+1) = n
hence n-1/(1) = >O(n)
I'm learning Big-O notation right now and stumbled across this small algorithm in another thread:
i = n
while (i >= 1)
{
for j = 1 to i // NOTE: i instead of n here!
{
x = x + 1
}
i = i/2
}
According to the author of the post, the complexity is Θ(n), but I can't figure out how. I think the while loop's complexity is Θ(log(n)). The for loop's complexity from what I was thinking would also be Θ(log(n)) because the number of iterations would be halved each time.
So, wouldn't the complexity of the whole thing be Θ(log(n) * log(n)), or am I doing something wrong?
Edit: the segment is in the best answer of this question: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9556782/find-theta-notation-of-the-following-while-loop#=
Imagine for simplicity that n = 2^k. How many times x gets incremented? It easily follows this is Geometric series
2^k + 2^(k - 1) + 2^(k - 2) + ... + 1 = 2^(k + 1) - 1 = 2 * n - 1
So this part is Θ(n). Also i get's halved k = log n times and it has no asymptotic effect to Θ(n).
The value of i for each iteration of the while loop, which is also how many iterations the for loop has, are n, n/2, n/4, ..., and the overall complexity is the sum of those. That puts it at roughly 2n, which gets you your Theta(n).