T(n) = 2n^2 + n + 1
I understand the 2n^2 and 1 parts, but I am confused about the n.
test = 0
for i in range(n):
for j in range(n):
test = test + i*j
This really depends on how your professor/book really break down the operation cost but I think we can kind of figure it out from here. Let's break 2n^2 + n + 1 down. The n^2 comes from the two loops.
for i in range(n):
for j in range(n):
The 2 coefficient comes from the two operations presumably. Note: this alone is just constant time complexity AKA O(1)
test = test + i * j
The initial calculation of range(n) could cost n (being the + n in your calculation). Then second call to range(n) could be optimized to use a cached value.
Finally it could be the test = 0 statement in the beginning could be the + 1. This could total in 2n^2 + n + 1. However, the worse case time complexity to this is still O(n^2).
Related
I feel that in worst case also, condition is true only two times when j=i or j=i^2 then loop runs for an extra i + i^2 times.
In worst case, if we take sum of inner 2 loops it will be theta(i^2) + i + i^2 , which is equal to theta(i^2) itself;
Summation of theta(i^2) on outer loop gives theta(n^3).
So, is the answer theta(n^3) ?
I would say that the overall performance is theta(n^4). Here is your pseudo-code, given in text format:
for (i = 1 to n) do
for (j = 1 to i^2) do
if (j % i == 0) then
for (k = 1 to j) do
sum = sum + 1
Appreciate first that the j % i == 0 condition will only be true when j is multiples of n. This would occur in fact only n times, so the final inner for loop would only be hit n times coming from the for loop in j. The final for loop would require n^2 steps for the case where j is near the end of the range. On the other hand, it would only take roughly n steps for the start of the range. So, the overall performance here should be somewhere between O(n^3) and O(n^4), but theta(n^4) should be valid.
For fixed i, the i integers 1 ≤ j ≤ i2 such that j % i = 0 are {i,2i,...,i2}. It follows that the inner loop is executed i times with arguments i * m for 1 ≤ m ≤ i and the guard executed i2 times. Thus, the complexity function T(n) ∈ Θ(n4) is given by:
T(n) = ∑[i=1,n] (∑[j=1,i2] 1 + ∑[m=1,i] ∑[k=1,i*m] 1)
= ∑[i=1,n] ∑[j=1,i2] 1 + ∑[i=1,n] ∑[m=1,i] ∑[k=1,i*m] 1
= n3/3 + n2/2 + n/6 + ∑[i=1,n] ∑[m=1,i] ∑[k=1,i*m] 1
= n3/3 + n2/2 + n/6 + n4/8 + 5n3/12 + 3n2/8 + n/12
= n4/8 + 3n3/4 + 7n2/8 + n/4
Computing complexity and Big o of an algorithm
T(n) = 5n log n + 3log n + 2 // to the base 2 big o = o(n log n)
for(int x = 0,i = 1;i <= N;i*=2)
{
for(int j = 1 ;j <= i ;j++)
{
x++;
}
}
The Big o expected was linear where as mine is logarithmic
Your Big-Oh analysis is not correct. While it is true that the outer loop is executed log n times, the inner loop is linear in i at each iteration.
If you count the total number of iterations of the inner loop, you will see that the whole thing is linear:
The inner loop will do 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + (the last power of 2 <= N) iterations. This sum will be between N and 2*N, which makes the whole loop linear.
Let me explain why your analysis is wrong.
It is clear that inner loop will execute 1 + 2 + 4 + ... + 2^k times where k is the biggest integer which satisfies equation . This implies that upper bound for k is
Without loss of generality we can take upper bound for k and assume that k is integer, complexity equals to 1 + 2 + 4 + ... + = which is geometric series so it is equal to
Therefore in O notation it is O(n)
First, you should notice that your analysis is not logarithmic! As N \log N is not logarithmic.
Also, the time complexity is T(n) = sum_{j = 0}^{log(n)} 2^j (as the value of i duplicated each time). Hence, T(n) = 2^(log(N) + 1) - 1 = 2N - 1 = \Theta(N).
I'm trying to figure out the exact big-O value of algorithms. I'll provide an example:
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) // 2N + 2
{
for (int x = i; x < n; x++) // N * 2N + 2 ?
{
sum += i; // N
}
} // Extra N?
So if I break some of this down, int i = 0 would be O(1), i < n is N+1, i++ is N, multiply the inner loop by N:
2N + 2 + N(1 + N + 1 + N) = 2N^2 + 2N + 2N + 2 = 2N^2 + 4N + 2
Add an N for the loop termination and the sum constant, = 3N^2 + 5N + 2...
Basically, I'm not 100% sure how to calculate the exact O notation for an algorithm, my guess is O(3N^2 + 5N + 2).
What do you mean by exact? Big O is an asymptotic upper bound, so it's by definition not exact.
Thinking about i=0 as O(1) and i<n as O(N+1) is not correct. Instead, think of the outer loop as doing something n times, and for every iteration of the outer loop, the inner loop is executed at most n times. The calculation inside the loop takes constant time (the calculation is not getting more complex as n gets bigger). So you end up with O(n*n*1) = O(n^2), quadratic complexity.
When asking about "exact", you're running the inner loop from 0 to n, then from 1 to n, then from 2 to n, ... , from (n-1) to n, each time doing a constant time operation. So you do n + (n-1) + (n-2) + ... + 1 = n*(n+1)/2 = n^2/2 + n/2 iterations. To get from the exact number of calculations to big O notation, omit constants and lower-order terms, and you'll end up with O(n^2) (the 1/2 and +n/2 are omitted).
Big O means Worst case complexity.
And Here worst case will occur only if both the loops will run for n numbers of time i.e n*n.
So, complexity is O(n2).
What is the time complexity for the following function?
for(int i = 0; i < a.size; i++) {
for(int j = i; j < a.size; i++) {
//
}
}
I think it is less than big O n^2 because we arent iterating over all of the elements in the second for loop. I believe the time complexity comes out to be something like this:
n[ (n) + (n-1) + (n-2) + ... + (n-n) ]
But when I solve this formula it comes out to be
n^2 - n + n^2 - 2n + n^2 - 3n + ... + n^2 - n^2
Which doesn't seem correct at all. Can somebody tell me exactly how to solve this problem, and where I am wrong.
That is O(n^2). If you consider the iteration where i = a.size() - 1, and you work your way backwards (i = a.size() - 2, i = a.size - 3, etc), you are looking at the following sum of number of iterations, where n = a.size.
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... + n
The sum of this series is n(n+1)/2, which is O(n^2). Note that big-O notation ignores constants and takes the highest polynomial power when it is applied to a polynomial function.
It will run for:
1 + 2 + 3 + .. + n
Which is 1/2 n(n+1) which give us O(n^2)
The Big-O notation will only keep the dominant term, neglecting constants too
The Big-O is only used to compare algorithms on the same variation of a problem using the same complexity analysis standard, if and only if the dominant terms are different.
If the dominant terms are the same, you need to compare Big-Theta or Time complexity, which will show minor differences.
Example
A
for i = 1 .. n
for j = i .. n
..
B
for i = 1 .. n
for j = 1 .. n
..
We have
Time(A) = 1/2 n(n+1) ~ O(n^2)
Time(B) = n^2 ~ O(n^2)
O(A) = O(B)
T(A) < T(B)
Analysis
To visualize how we got 1 + 2 + 3 + .. n:
for i = 1 .. n:
print "(1 + "
sum = 0
for j = i .. n:
sum++
print sum") + "
will print the following:
(1+n) + (1+(n-1)) + .. + (1+3) + (1+2) + (1+1) + (1+0)
n+1 + n + n-1 + .. + 3 + 2 + 1
1 + 2 + 3 + .. + n + n+1
1/2 n(n+1) + (n+1)
1/2 n^2 + 1/2 n + n + 1
1/2 n^2 + 3/2 n + 1
Yes, the number of iterations is strictly less than n^2, but it's still Θ(n^2). It will eventually be greater than n^k for any k<2, and it will eventually be less than n^k for any k>2.
(As a side note, computer scientists often say big-O when they really mean big-theta (Θ). It's technically correct to say that almost every algorithm you've seen has O(n!) running time; all reasonably algorithms have running times that grow no more quickly than n!. But it's not really useful to say that the complexity is O(n!) if it's also O(n log n), so by some kind of Gricean maxim we assume that when someone says an algorithm's complexiy is O(f(x)) that f(x) is as small as possible.)
I am somewhat confused with the running time analysis of a program here which has recursive calls which depend on a RNG. (Randomly Generated Number)
Let's begin with the pseudo-code, and then I will go into what I have thought about so far related to this one.
Func1(A, i, j)
/* A is an array of at least j integers */
1 if (i ≥ j) then return (0);
2 n ← j − i + 1 ; /* n = number of elements from i to j */
3 k ← Random(n);
4 s ← 0; //Takes time of Arbitrary C
5 for r ← i to j do
6 A[r] ← A[r] − A[i] − A[j]; //Arbitrary C
7 s ← s + A[r]; //Arbitrary C
8 end
9 s ← s + Func1(A, i, i+k-1); //Recursive Call 1
10 s ← s + Func1(A, i+k, j); //Recursive Call 2
11 return (s);
Okay, now let's get into the math I have tried so far. I'll try not to be too pedantic here as it is just a rough, estimated analysis of expected run time.
First, let's consider the worst case. Note that the K = Random(n) must be at least 1, and at most n. Therefore, the worst case is the K = 1 is picked. This causes the total running time to be equal to T(n) = cn + T(1) + T(n-1). Which means that overall it takes somewhere around cn^2 time total (you can use Wolfram to solve recurrence relations if you are stuck or rusty on recurrence relations, although this one is a fairly simple one).
Now, here is where I get somewhat confused. For the expected running time, we have to base our assumption off of the probability of the random number K. Therefore, we have to sum all the possible running times for different values of k, plus their individual probability. By lemma/hopefully intuitive logic: the probability of any one Randomly Generated k, with k between 1 to n, is equal 1/n.
Therefore, (in my opinion/analysis) the expected run time is:
ET(n) = cn + (1/n)*Summation(from k=1 to n-1) of (ET(k-1) + ET(n-k))
Let me explain a bit. The cn is simply for the loop which runs i to j. This is estimated by cn. The summation represents all of the possible values for k. The (1/n) multiplied by this summation is there because the probability of any one k is (1/n). The terms inside the summation represent the running times of the recursive calls of Func1. The first term on the left takes ET(k-1) because this recursive call is going to do a loop from i to k-1 (which is roughly ck), and then possibly call Func1 again. The second is a representation of the second recursive call, which would loop from i+k to j, which is also represented by n-k.
Upon expansion of the summation, we see that the overall function ET(n) is of the order n^2. However, as a test case, plugging in k=(n/2) gives a total running time for Func 1 of roughly nlog(n). This is why I am confused. How can this be, if the estimated running time is of the order n^2? Am I considering a "good" case by plugging in n/2 for k? Or am I thinking about k in the wrong sense in some way?
Expected time complexity is ET(n) = O(nlogn) . Following is math proof derived by myself please tell if any error :-
ET(n) = P(k=1)*(ET(1)+ET(n-1)) + P(k=2)*(ET(2)+ET(n-2)).......P(k=n-1)*(ET(n-1)+ET(1)) + c*n
As the RNG is uniformly random P(k=x) = 1/n for all x
hence ET(n) = 1/n*(ET(1)*2+ET(2)*2....ET(n-1)*2) + c*n
ET(n) = 2/n*sum(ET(i)) + c*n i in (1,n-1)
ET(n-1) = 2/(n-1)*sum(ET(i)) + c*(n-1) i in (1,n-2)
sum(ET(i)) i in (1,n-2) = (ET(n-1)-c*(n-1))*(n-1)/2
ET(n) = 2/n*(sum(ET(i)) in (1,n-2) + ET(n-1)) + c*n
ET(n) = 2/n*((ET(n-1)-c*(n-1))*(n-1)/2+ET(n-1)) + c*n
ET(n) = 2/n*((n+1)/2*ET(n-1) - c*(n-1)*(n-1)/2) + c*n
ET(n) = (n+1)/n*ET(n-1) + c*n - c*(n-1)*(n-1)/n
ET(n) = (n+1)/n*ET(n-1) + c
solving recurrence
ET(n) = (n+1)ET(1) + c + (n+1)/n*c + (n+1)/(n-1)*c + (n+1)/(n-2)*c.....
ET(n) = (n+1) + c + (n+1)*sum(1/i) i in (1,n)
sum(1/i) i in (1,n) = O(logn)
ET(n) = (n+1) + c + (n+1)*logn
ET(n) = O(nlogn)