"Every comparison-based algorithm to sort n elements must take Ω(nlogn) comparisons in the worst case. With this fact, what would be the complexity of constructing a n-node binary search tree and why?"
Based on this question, I am thinking that the construction complexity must be at least O(nlogn). That said, I can't seem to figure out how to find the total complexity of construction.
The title of the question and the text you quote are asking different things. I am going to address what the quote is saying because finding how expensive BST construction is can be done just by looking at an algorithm.
Assume that for a second it was possible to construct a BST in better than Ω(nlogn). With a binary search tree you can read out the sorted list in Θ(n) time. This means I could create a sorting algorithm as follows.
Algorithm sort(L)
B <- buildBST(L)
Sorted <- inOrderTraversal(B)
return Sorted
With this algorithm I would be able to sort a list in better than Ω(nlogn). But as you stated this is not possible because Ω(nlogn) is a lower bound. Therefor it is not possible to create a binary search tree in better than Ω(nlogn) time.
Furthermore since an algorithm exits to create a BST in O(nlogn) time you can actually say that the algorithm is optimal under the comparison based model
The construction of the BST will be O(n(log(n))).
You will need to insert each and every node which is an O(n) operation.
To insert that n nodes you will need to make at least O(log(n)) comparisons.
Hence the minimum will be O(n(log(n))).
Only in the best case where the array is already sorted the time complexity will be O(n)
Related
This question already has an answer here:
Is building a BST with N given elements is O(n lg n)?
(1 answer)
Closed 1 year ago.
What is the big-O (worst case) complexity of the total time required to build a binary search tree (BST) consisting of 𝑛 nodes?
Hi, I understand that the run time complexity for worst case is O(n) for adding a single node to the tree. I would like to know if the run time complexity is still O(n) when building a BST.
It can be proven that a BST cannot be built in linear time regardless of the algorithm used to do it. At least, this proof will hold in the case that the values are ordered via comparison, and tricks such as "first sort the data using Counting Sort" are excluded. I think this is more useful than arguing from the angle of "you would have to call insert n times", which is just one way to construct a BST, and doesn't say anything about hypothetical alternative algorithms.
Applying the "you must call insert n times"-argument to different cases would show for example that binary heap cannot be built in linear time, and that a suffix tree cannot be built in linear time. But both of them can be built in linear time, using a different algorithm than "call insert n times". So it's a wrong argument in general, and we shouldn't use it here either.
If a BST could be constructed in linear time, then sorting is also possible in linear time:
build the BST in linear time,
then do an in-order traversal also in linear time, which yield the elements in sorted order.
Something about that must be false, because it is known that comparison-based sorting has a lower bound of needing at least Ω(n log n) comparisons. Doing the in-order traversal is possible, so it must be the other half of the this algorithm that is impossible. Hence it is impossible to build a BST in linear time (at least, it is impossible as long as the construction is based on comparisons).
I revisited insertion sort algorithm and noticed something funny.
One obviously shouldn't use an array with this sort, as upon insertion, one will have to shift all subsequent elements O(n^2 log(n)). However a linked list is also not good here, since we preferably find the right placement using binary search, which isn't possible for a simple linked list (so we end up with O(n^2)).
Which makes me wonder: what is a data structure on which this sorting algorithm provides its premise of O(nlog(n)) complexity?
From where did you get the premise of O(n log n)? Wikipedia disagrees, as does my own experience. The premises of the insertion sort include components that are O(n) for each of the n elements.
Also, I believe that your claim of O(n^2 log n) is incorrect. The binary search is log n, and the ensuing "move sideways" is n, but these two steps are in succession, not nested. The result is n + log n, not a multiplication. The result is the expected O(n^2).
If you use a gapped array and a binary search to figure out where to insert things, then with high probability your sort will be O(n log(n)). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_sort for details.
However this is not as efficient as a wide variety of other sorts that are widely implemented. So this knowledge is only of theoretical interest.
Insertion sort is defined over array or list, if you use some other data structure, then it will be another algorithm.
Of course if you use a BST, insertion and search would be O(log(n)) and your overall complexity would be O(n.log(n)) on the average (remind that it will be O(n^2) in the worst), but this will be no more an insertion sort but a tree sort. If you use an AVL tree, then you get the O(n.log(n)) worst case complexity.
In insertion sort the best case scenario is when the sequence is already sorted and that takes Linear time and in the worst case takes O(n^2) time. I do not know how you got the logarithmic part in the complexity.
The best case running time for binary search is O(log(n)), if the binary tree is balanced. The worst case would be, if the binary tree is so unbalanced, that it basically represents a linked list. In that case the running time of a binary search would be O(n).
However, what if the tree is only slightly unbalanced, as is teh case for this tree:
Best case would still be O(log n) if I am not mistaken. But what would be the worst case?
Typically, when we say something like "the cost of looking up an element in a balanced binary search tree is O(log n)," what we mean is "in the worst case, we have to do O(log n) work in the course of performing a search on a balanced binary search tree." And since we're talking about big-O notation here, the previous statement is meant to be taken about balanced trees in general rather than a specific concrete tree.
If you have a specific BST in mind, you can work out the maximum number of comparisons required to find any element. Just find the deepest node in the tree, then imagine searching for a value that's bigger than that value but smaller than the next value in the tree. That will cause you to walk all the way down the tree as deeply as possible, making the maximum number of comparisons possible (specifically, h + 1 of them, where h is the height of the tree).
To be able to talk about the big-O cost of performing lookups in a tree, you'd need to talk about a family of trees of different numbers of nodes. You could imagine "kinda balanced" trees whose depth is Θ(√n), for example, where lookups would take time O(√n), for example. However, it's uncommon to encounter trees like that in practice, since generally you'd either (1) have a totally imbalanced tree or (2) use some sort of balanced tree that would prevent the height from getting that high.
In a sorted array of n values, the run-time of binary search for a value, is
O(log n), in the worst case. In the best case, the element you are searching for, is in the exact middle, and it can finish up in constant-time. In the average case too, the run-time is O(log n).
Given n words, is it possible to sort them in lexicographic order with o(n) time complexity?? Well i found a method like creating a trie data structure and an inorder traversal of the trie would result in time complexity close to O(kn) where k is the arbitrary string length, but the problem here being space complexity. constructing BST and inorder traversal is also a good option but time complexit is O(nlogn) . So could anyone suggest me whoch would be better BST or trie given the constraints of both. Any other algorithm or suggestions are also welcomed.
It is easy to sort the words in O(nL) time with a bucket sort or radix sort. Here L is word length. It's impossible to do better, since you must look at all the keys at least once.
Your triesort idea is an old one.
We always see operations on a (binary search) tree has O(logn) worst case running time because of the tree height is logn. I wonder if we are told that an algorithm has running time as a function of logn, e.g m + nlogn, can we conclude it must involve an (augmented) tree?
EDIT:
Thanks to your comments, I now realize divide-conquer and binary tree are so similar visually/conceptually. I had never made a connection between the two. But I think of a case where O(logn) is not a divide-conquer algo which involves a tree which has no property of a BST/AVL/red-black tree.
That's the disjoint set data structure with Find/Union operations, whose running time is O(N + MlogN), with N being the # of elements and M the number of Find operations.
Please let me know if I'm missing sth, but I cannot see how divide-conquer comes into play here. I just see in this (disjoint set) case that it has a tree with no BST property and a running time being a function of logN. So my question is about why/why not I can make a generalization from this case.
What you have is exactly backwards. O(lg N) generally means some sort of divide and conquer algorithm, and one common way of implementing divide and conquer is a binary tree. While binary trees are a substantial subset of all divide-and-conquer algorithms, the are a subset anyway.
In some cases, you can transform other divide and conquer algorithms fairly directly into binary trees (e.g. comments on another answer have already made an attempt at claiming a binary search is similar). Just for another obvious example, however, a multiway tree (e.g. a B-tree, B+ tree or B* tree), while clearly a tree is just as clearly not a binary tree.
Again, if you want to badly enough, you can stretch the point that a multiway tree can be represented as sort of a warped version of a binary tree. If you want to, you can probably stretch all the exceptions to the point of saying that all of them are (at least something like) binary trees. At least to me, however, all that does is make "binary tree" synonymous with "divide and conquer". In other words, all you accomplish is warping the vocabulary and essentially obliterating a term that's both distinct and useful.
No, you can also binary search a sorted array (for instance). But don't take my word for it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_search_algorithm
As a counter example:
given array 'a' with length 'n'
y = 0
for x = 0 to log(length(a))
y = y + 1
return y
The run time is O(log(n)), but no tree here!
Answer is no. Binary search of a sorted array is O(log(n)).
Algorithms taking logarithmic time are commonly found in operations on binary trees.
Examples of O(logn):
Finding an item in a sorted array with a binary search or a balanced search tree.
Look up a value in a sorted input array by bisection.
As O(log(n)) is only an upper bound also all O(1) algorithms like function (a, b) return a+b; satisfy the condition.
But I have to agree all Theta(log(n)) algorithms kinda look like tree algorithms or at least can be abstracted to a tree.
Short Answer:
Just because an algorithm has log(n) as part of its analysis does not mean that a tree is involved. For example, the following is a very simple algorithm that is O(log(n)
for(int i = 1; i < n; i = i * 2)
print "hello";
As you can see, no tree was involved. John, also provides a good example on how binary search can be done on a sorted array. These both take O(log(n)) time, and there are of other code examples that could be created or referenced. So don't make assumptions based on the asymptotic time complexity, look at the code to know for sure.
More On Trees:
Just because an algorithm involves "trees" doesn't imply O(logn) either. You need to know the tree type and how the operation affects the tree.
Some Examples:
Example 1)
Inserting or searching the following unbalanced tree would be O(n).
Example 2)
Inserting or search the following balanced trees would both by O(log(n)).
Balanced Binary Tree:
Balanced Tree of Degree 3:
Additional Comments
If the trees you are using don't have a way to "balance" than there is a good chance that your operations will be O(n) time not O(logn). If you use trees that are self balancing, then inserts normally take more time, as the balancing of the trees normally occur during the insert phase.