after analyzing the algorithm complexity I have a few questions:
For the best case complexity - the recurrence relation is T(n) = T(n/2) + dn which implies that the complexity is Θ(n).
So by the master theory I can clearly see why this is true , but when I draw the algorithm recursive calls as a tree I don't fully understand the final result. (It seems like I have one branch in height of log(n) which in each level I operate a partition O(n) - so it suppose to be nlog(n) .
(just for memorizing - this is very similar to the best case of mergeSort algorithem , but here we ignore the unwanted sub-array after partition).
Thanks!
It is as Yves Daoust wrote. Image it with real numbers, i.e. n=1024
T(n) = T(n/2) + dn
T(1024) = T(512) + 1024
T(512) = T(256) + 512
....
T(2) = T(1) + 2 -> this would be the last operation
Therefore you get 1024+512+256+...+1 <= 2048, which is 2n
You must think about that dn is as big as n, but in recurrence relation the n is not global variable, it is local variable based on method you call.
So there is log(n) calls but they do not take n-time everyone, they take less and less time.
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)
Given the below algorithm:
Algorithm Find-Max(Array, size)
Max = -INFINITY
for k:= 1 to n do
if(A[k] > Max-sf) Then
Max-sf:=A[k]
end if
The question is what is the average times is the variable max updated?
I am practicing algorithm analysis and below is my thought but I am not sure about it so I would like to ask for advice.
Let T(n) be the number of comparisons in each call on find-Max with size = n.
T(n) = T(n-1) + 1/n
where 1/n is the probability such that the the largest number is at the index n. Therefore,
T(n-1) = T(n-2) + 1/(n-1)
T(n-2) = T(n-3) + 1/(n-2)
By telescoping,
T(n) = 1/n + 1/(n-1)+ 1/(n-2) + .... + 1
, which is harmonic series. Therefore the average times the variable Max-sf updated is log(n))
This is how i prove it.
So, I would like to ask 3 questions:
(1) Is the proof above correct?
(2) Is there a way to get precise value of the number of comparisons?
(3) Supposed that we use the divide and conquer method by using similar idea as merge sort instead of scanning an array, will the number of updates still the same?
1) I'm not sure regarding your proof, but I find this one to be the most formal and convincing one.
2) The precise number of comparisons seems to be fixed. You always do n comparisons in the loop.
3) Regarding the divide and conquer option, it can't be better than the worst case number of updates (which is n), since it behaves like:
T(n) = 2T(n/2) + 1
Which results in T(2^n) = 2*2^n-1, which means Theta(n) complexity.
I understand that it is similar to the Fibonacci sequence that has an exponential running time. However this recurrence relation has more branches. What are the asymptotic bounds of T(n) = 2T(n-1) + 3T(n-2)+ 1?
Usually, you will need to make some assumptions on T(0) and T(1), because there will be exponentially many of them and their values may determine the functional form of T(n). However in this case it doesn't seem to matter.
Then, recurrence relations of this form can be solved by finding their characteristic polynomials. I found this article: http://www.wikihow.com/Solve-Recurrence-Relations
I obtained the characteristic polynomial with roots 3 and 1, so that guesses the form T(n) = c_1*3^n + c_2. In particular, T(n) = 1/2*3^n - 1/4 satisfies the recurrence relation, and we can verify this.
1/2*3^n - 1/4 = 2*T(n-1) + 3*T(n-2) + 1
= 2*(1/2*3^(n-1) - 1/4) + 3*(1/2*3^(n-2) - 1/4) + 1
= 3^(n-1) - 1/2 + 1/2*3^(n-1) - 3/4 + 1
= 3/2*3^(n-1) - 1/4
= 1/2*3^n - 1/4
Hence it would give that T(n) = Theta(3^n). However, this may not be the only function that satisfies the recurrence and other possibilities will also depend on what you defined the values T(0) and T(1), but they should all be O(3^n).
This type of recurrences are called: non-homogeneous recurrence relations and you have to solve in the beginning homogeneous recurrence (the one without a constant at the end). If you are interested, read the math behind it.
I will show you an easy way. Just type your equation in wolfram-alpha and you will get:
,
which is clearly an exponential complexity: O(3^n)
Somewhat similar to fibonacci sequence
Running time of an algorithm is given by
T (n) =T (n-1)+T(n-2)+T(n-3) if n > 3
= n otherwise the order of this algorithm is?
if calculated by induction method then
T(n) = T(n-1) + T(n-2) + T(n-3)
Let us assume T(n) to be some function aⁿ
then aⁿ = an-1 + an-2 + an-3
=> a³ = a² + a + 1
which give complex solutions also roots of above equation according to my calculations are
a = 1.839286755
a = 0.419643 - i ( 0.606291)
a = 0.419643 + i ( 0.606291)
Now, how can I proceed further or is there any other method for this?
If I remember correctly, when you have determined the roots of the characteristic equation, then the T(n) can be the linear combination of the powers of those Roots
T(n)=A1*root1^n+A2*root2^n+A3*root3^n
So I guess the maximum complexity here will be
(maxroot)^n where maxroot is the maximum absolute value of your roots. So for your case it is ~ 1.83^n
Asymptotic analysis is done for running times of programs which give us how the running time will grow with the input.
For Recurrence relations (like the one you mentioned), we use a two step process:
Estimate the running time using the recursion tree method.
Validate(Confirm) the estimate using the substitution method.
You can find explanation of these methods in any algorithm text (eg. Cormen).
it can be aproximated like 3+9+27+......3^n which is O(3^n)