a. f(N) = N and g(N) = N + N2
b. f(N) = 2N and g(N) = √N
c. f(N) = NlogN + N and g(N) = 2NlogN + N
d. f(N) = 2√N + N and g(N) = √N + N
What is the best way of calculating these functions, I have tried putting values into them, but some of them are very close in values and I am not sure which one to pick.
Calculate f(N)/g(N) in the limit N➡Infinity.
If f(N)/g(N) approaches a positive constant 𝛼 in the limit N➡Infinity, then f(N) ~ 𝛼 g(N).
Related
I was reading an article and came across the following :
Informally, O(g(n)) can be defined as the set of mathematical functions that contains all functions that don’t “grow faster” than g(n). Thus, all functions below are in the set O(n²):
f(n) = n²+3n + 2, f(n) = n log(n), f(n) = 3n+1
.
Can please anyone tell me how f(n) = n²+3n + 2 grows faster than g(n)?
Can please anyone tell me how f(n) = n²+3n + 2 grows faster than g(n)?
Here is one way to understand it (a bit informal, but I find it more intuitive).
Let L be limit as n goes to infinity of f(n)/g(n)
If L is infinity then f(n) grows faster than g(n) (numerator overwhelms denominator).
If L is 0 then f(n) grows slower than g(n) (denominator overwhelms numerator)
If L is finite number then they have same (comparable) growth rates.
We can define O(g(n)) as the following set:
O(g(n)) = { f(n) ∶ ∃ c > 0 and n0 > 0 | 0 ≤ f(n) ≤ c ⋅ g(n), ∀n ≥ n0 }
This means O(g(n)) is the set of all functions f(n) which grow slower than g(n) for some constant c and for n ≥ n0. In order to find n0 and c we use a justification like the following:
n²+3n + 2 ≤ n² + 3n² + 2n²
n²+3n + 2 ≤ 6n² for c = 6 and n ≥ 1
Now if you just use g(n) = n² obviously f(n) = n² + 3n + 2 will grow faster than g(n); but by choosing the value of c correctly g(n) will grow faster than f(n) for n ≥ n0.
My textbook describes the relationship as follows:
There is a very nice mathematical intuition which describes these classes too. Suppose we have an algorithm which has running time N0 when given an input of size n, and a running time of N1 on an input of size 2n. We can characterize the rates of growth in terms of the relationship between N0 and N1:
Big-Oh Relationship
O(log n) N1 ≈ N0 + c
O(n) N1 ≈ 2N0
O(n²) N1 ≈ 4N0
O(2ⁿ) N1 ≈ (N0)²
Why is this?
That is because if f(n) is in O(g(n)) then it can be thought of as acting like k * g(n) for some k.
So for example if f(n) = O(log(n)) then it acts like k log(n), and now f(2n) ≈ k log(2n) = k (log(2) + log(n)) = k log(2) + k log(n) ≈ k log(2) + f(n) and that is your desired equation with c = k log(2).
Note that this is a rough intuition only. An example of where it breaks down is that f(n) = (2 + sin(n)) log(n) = O(log(n)). The oscillating 2 + sin(n) bit means that f(2n)-f(n) can be basically anything.
I personally find this kind of rough intuition to be misleading and therefore worse than useless. Others find it very helpful. Decide for yourself how much weight you give it.
Basically what they are trying to show is just basic algebra after substituting 2n for n in the functions.
O(log n)
log(2n) = log(2) + log(n)
N1 ≈ c + N0
O(n)
2n = 2(n)
N1 ≈ 2N0
O(n²)
(2n)^2 = 4n^2 = 4(n^2)
N1 ≈ 4N0
O(2ⁿ)
2^(2n) = 2^(n*2) = (2^n)^2
N1 ≈ (N0)²
Since O(f(n)) ~ k * f(n) (almost by definition), you want to look at what happens when you put 2n in for n. In each case:
N1 ≈ k*log 2n = k*(log 2 + log n) = k*log n + k*log 2 ≈ N0 + c where c = k*log 2
N1 ≈ k*(2n) = 2*k*n ≈ 2N0
N1 ≈ k*(2n)^2 = 4*k*n^2 ≈ 4N0
N1 ≈ k*2^(2n) = k*(2^n)^2 ≈ N0*2^n ≈ N0^2/k
So the last one is not quite right, anyway. Keep in mind that these relationships are only true asymptotically, so the approximations will be more accurate as n gets larger. Also, f(n) = O(g(n)) only means g(n) is an upper bound for f(n) for large enough n. So f(n) = O(g(n)) does not necessarily mean f(n) ~ k*g(n). Ideally, you want that to be true, since your big-O bound will be tight when that is the case.
Given F(n) = θ(n)
H(n) = O(n)
G(n) = Ω(n)
then what will be order of F(n) + [G(n) . H(n)] ?
edit: F(n) = θ(n) not Q(n)
There isn't enough information to say anything about the function P(n) = G(n)*H(n). All we know is that G grows at least linearly; it could be growing quadratically, cubically, even exponentially. Likewise, we only know that H grows at most linearly; it could only be growing logarithmically, or be constant, or even be decreasing. As a result, P(n) itself could be decreasing or increasing without bound, which means the sum F(n) + P(n) could also be decreasing or increasing without bound.
Suppose, though, that we could assume that H(n) = Ω(1) (i.e., it is at least not decreasing). Now we can say the following about P(n):
P(n) = H(n) * G(n)
>= C1 * G(n)
= Ω(G(n)) = Ω(n)
P(n) <= C1*n * G(n)
= O(n*G(n))
Thus F(n) + P(n) = Ω(n) and F(n) + P(n) = O(n*G(n)), but nothing more can be said; both bounds are as tight as we can make them without more information about H or G.
So I'm struggling with proving (or disproving) the above question. I feel like it is true, but I'm not sure how to show it.
Again, the question is if g(n) is o(f(n)), then f(n) + g(n) is Theta(f(n))
Note, that is a little-o, not a big-o!!!
So far, I've managed to (easily) show that:
g(n) = o(f(n)) -> g(n) < c*f(n)
Then g(n) + f(n) < (c+1)*f(n) -> (g(n) + f(n)) = O(f(n))
However, for showing Big Omega, I'm not sure what to do there.
Am I going about this right?
EDIT: Everyone provided great help, but I could only mark one. THANK YOU.
One option would be to take the limit of (f(n) + g(n)) / f(n) as n tends toward infinity. If this converges to a finite, nonzero value, then f(n) + g(n) = Θ(f(n)).
Assuming that f(n) is nonzero for sufficiently large n, the above ratio, in the limit, is
(f(n) + g(n)) / f(n)
= f(n) / f(n) + g(n) / f(n)
= 1 + g(n) / f(n).
Therefore, taking the limit as n goes to infinity, the above expression converges to 1 because the ratio goes to zero (this is what it means for g(n) to be o(f(n)).
So far so good.
For the next step, recall that in the best case, 0 <= g(n); this should get you a lower bound on g(n) + f(n).
Before we begin, lets first state what little-o and Big-Theta notations means:
Little-o notation
Formally, that g(n) = o(f(n)) (or g(n) ∈ o(f(n))) holds for
sufficiently large n means that for every positive constant ε
there exists a constant N such that
|g(n)| ≤ ε*|f(n)|, for all n > N (+)
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation#Little-o_notation.
Big-Θ notation
h(n) = Θ(f(n)) means there exists positive constants k_1, k_2
and N, such that k_1 · |f(n)| and k_2 · |f(n)| is an upper bound
and lower bound on on |h(n)|, respectively, for n > N, i.e.
k_1 · |f(n)| ≤ |h(n)| ≤ k_2 · |f(n)|, for all n > N (++)
From https://www.khanacademy.org/computing/computer-science/algorithms/asymptotic-notation/a/big-big-theta-notation.
Given: g(n) ∈ o(f(n))
Hence, in our case, for every ε>0 we can find some constant N such that (+), for our functions g(n) and f(n). Hence, for n>N, we have
|g(n)| ≤ ε*|f(n)|, for some ε>0, for all n>N
Choose a constant ε < 1 (recall, the above holds for all ε > 0),
with accompanied constant N.
Then the following holds for all n>N
ε(|g(n)| + |f(n)|) ≤ 2|f(n)| ≤ 2(|g(n)| + |f(n)|) ≤ 4*|f(n)| (*)
Stripping away the left-most inequality in (*) and dividing by 2, we have:
|f(n)| ≤ |g(n)| + |f(n)| ≤ 2*|f(n)|, n>N (**)
We see that this is the very definition Big-Θ notation, as presented in (++), with constants k_1 = 1, k_2 = 2 and h(n) = g(n)+f(n). Hence
(**) => g(n) + f(n) is in Θ(f(n))
Ans we have shown that g(n) ∈ o(f(n)) implies (g(n) + f(n)) ∈ Θ(f(n)).
I have these three questions for an exam review:
If f(n) = 2n - 3 give two different functions g(n) and h(n) (so g(n) doesn't equal h(n)) such that f(n) = O(g(n)) and f(n) = O(h(n))
Now do the same again with functions g'(n) and h'(n), but this time the function should be of the form
g'(n) = Ɵ(f(n)) and f(n) = o(h'(n))
Is it possible for a function f(n) = O(g(n)) and f(n) = Ω(g(n))?
I know that a function is O(n) of another, if it is less than or equal to the other function. So I think 1. could be g(n) = 2n²-3 and h(n) = 2n²-10.
I also know that a function is Ɵ(n) of another if it is basically equal to the other function (we can ignore constants), and o(n) if it is only less than the function, so for 2. I think you could have g'(n) = 2n-15 and h'(n) = 2n.
To 3.: It is possible for a function to be both O(n) and Ω(n) because O(n) and Ω(n) allows for the function to be the same as the given function, so you could have a function g(n) that equals f(n) and satisfies the rules for being both O and Ω.
Can someone please tell me if this is correct?
Your answers are mostly right. But I would like to add some points:
Given is f(n) = 2n - 3
With g(n) = 2n²-3 and h(n) = 2n²-10 f(n) is in O(g(n)) and in O(h(n)). But your g(n) and h(n) are basicly the same, at least they are both in Θ(n²). There exists many other function that would also work. E.g.
f(n) ∈ O(n) ⇒ g(n) = n
f(n) ∈ O(nk) ⇒ g(n) = nk ∀ k ≥ 1
f(n) ∈ O(2ⁿ) ⇒ g(n) = 2ⁿ
g'(n) = 2n-15 reduces to g'(n) = n, if we think in complexities, and this is right. In fact, it is the only possible answer.
But f(n) ∈ o(h'(n)) does not hold for h'(n) = 2n. Little-o means that
limn → ∞ | f(n)/g(n) | = 0 ⇔ f(n) ∈ o(g(n))
So you can choose h'(n) = n² or more general h'(n) = nk ∀ k > 1 or h'(n) = cⁿ for a constant c > 1.
Yes it is possible and you can take it also as a definition for Θ(g(n)):
f(n) ∈ Θ(g(n)) ⇔ f(n) ∈ O(g(n)) and f(n) ∈ Ω(g(n))