I have some doubts about the time complexities of these algorithms:
These are all the possible options for these algorithms
Algorithm 1
int i=0, j=0, sum = 0;
while i*i < n {
while j*j < n {
sum = sum + i * j;
j = j+2;
}
i = i+5;
}
//I don't really know what this one might be, but my poor logic suggests O(sqrt(n))
Algorithm 2
sum = 0;
for (i=0; i<=n; i++){
j = n;
while j>i {
sum = sum + j - i;
j = j – 1;
}
}
//While I know this algorithm has some nested loops, I don't know if the actual answer is O(n^2)
Algorithm 3
for (int i=0; i<=n; i++)
for (int j=0; j<=n; j++){
k = 0;
while k<n {
c = c+ 1;
k = K + 100;
}
}
//I believe this one has a time complexity of O(n^3) since it has 3 nested loops
Algorithm 4
Algorithm int f(int n) {
if n==0 or n == 1
return n
else
return f(n-2)+f(n-1)
//I know for a fact this algorithm is O(2^n) since it is the poor implementation of fibonacci
I think I have an idea of what the answers might be but I would like to get a second opinion on them. Thanks in advance.
Okay so this is what I think, Answers in bold
Algorithm 1
I think this is the most interesting algorithm. Let's build it up from a simple case
Let's temporarily assume it was just 2 nested loops that just checked for i,j being <n and not the the squares of those values. Now the fact that i and j get incremented by 5 and 2 respectively is inconsequential. And the complexity would have just been O(n2).
Now let's factor in the fact that the check is in fact i*i < n and j * j < n. This means that effective value ofyour iterators is their square and not just their absolute value. If it had been just one loop the complexity would have been O(sqrt(n)). But since we have 2 nested loops the complexity become O(sqrt(n) * sqrt(n)) which becomes O(n)
Algorithm 2
Your reasoning is right. It is O(n2)
Algorithm 3
Your reasoning is right. It is O(n3)
Algorithm 4
I don't think this is a fibonacci implementation but your time complexity guess is correct. Why I don't think this is a fibonacci is because this algorithm takes in a large number and works in reverse. You could send in something like 10 which isn't even a fibonacci number.
A nice way to think of this is as a binary tree. Every node, in your case every call to the fn that is not 1 or 0 spawns 2 children. Each call minimally removes 1 from the initial value sent in, say n. Therefore there would be n levels. The maximum number of nodes in a binary tree of depth n is 2n - 1. Therefore O(2n) is right
Related
for(i=0; i<n; i++) // time complexity n+1
{
k=1; // time complexity n
while(k<=n) // time complexity n*(n+1)
{
for(j=0; j<k; j++) // time complexity ??
printf("the sum of %d and %d is: %d\n",j,k,j+k); time complexity ??
k++;
}
What is the time complexity of the above code? I stuck in the second (for) and i don't know how to find the time complexity because j is less than k and not less than n.
I always having problems related to time complexity, do you guys got some good article on it?
especially about the step count and loops.
From the question :
because j is less than k and not less than n.
This is just plain wrong, and I guess that's the assumption that got you stuck. We know what values k can take. In your code, it ranges from 1 to n (included). Thus, if j is less than k, it is also less than n.
From the comments :
i know the the only input is n but in the second for depends on k an not in n .
If a variable depends on anything, it's on the input. j depends on k that itself depends on n, which means j depends on n.
However, this is not enough to deduce the complexity. In the end, what you need to know is how many times printf is called.
The outer for loop is executed n times no matter what. We can factor this out.
The number of executions of the inner for loop depends on k, which is modified within the while loop. We know k takes every value from 1 to n exactly once. That means the inner for loop will first be executed once, then twice, then three times and so on, up until n times.
Thus, discarding the outer for loop, printf is called 1+2+3+...+n times. That sum is very well known and easy to calculate : 1+2+3+...+n = n*(n+1)/2 = (n^2 + n)/2.
Finally, the total number of calls to printf is n * (n^2 + n)/2 = n^3/2 + n^2/2 = O(n^3). That's your time complexity.
A final note about this kind of codes. Once you see the same patterns a few times, you quickly start to recognize the kind of complexity involved. Then, when you see that kind of nested loops with dependent variables, you immediately know that the complexity for each loop is linear.
For instance, in the following, f is called n*(n+1)*(n+2)/6 = O(n^3) times.
for (i = 1; i <= n; ++i) {
for (j = 1; j <= i; ++j) {
for (k = 1; k <= j; ++k) {
f();
}
}
}
First, simplify the code to show the main loops. So, we have a structure of:
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for(int k = 1; k <= n; k++) {
for(int j = 0; j < k; j++) {
}
}
}
The outer-loops run n * n times but there's not much you can do with this information because the complexity of the inner-loop changes based on which iteration of the outer-loop you're on, so it's not as simple as calculating the number of times the outer loops run and multiplying by some other value.
Instead, I would find it easier to start with the inner-loop, and then add the outer-loops from the inner-most to outer-most.
The complexity of the inner-most loop is k.
With the middle loop, it's the sum of k (the complexity above) where k = 1 to n. So 1 + 2 + ... + n = (n^2 + n) / 2.
With the outer loop, it's done n times so another multiplication by n. So n * (n^2 + n) / 2.
After simplifying, we get a total of O(n^3)
The time complexity for the above code is : n x n x n = n^3 + 1+ 1 = n^3 + 2 for the 3 loops plus the two constants. Since n^3 carries the heaviest growing rate the constant values can be ignored, so the Time complexity would be n^3.
Note: Take each loop as (n) and to obtained the total time, multiple the (n) values in each loop.
Hope this will help !
What would be the order of growth of the code below. My guess was, each loop's growth is linear but the if statement is confusing me. How do I include that with the whole thing. I would very much appreciate an explanatory answer so I can understand the process involved.
int count = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++)
for (int j = i+1; j < N; j++)
for (int k = j+1; k < N; k++)
if(a[i] + a[j] + a[k] == 0)
count++;
There are two things that can be confusing when trying to determine the code's complexity.
The fact that not all loops start from 0. The second loop starts from i + 1 and the third from j + 1. Does this affect the complexity? It does not. Let's consider only the first two loops. For i = 0, the second runs N - 1 times, for i = 1 it runs N - 2 times, ..., for i = N - 1 it runs 0 times. Add all these up:
0 + 1 + ... + N - 1 = N(N - 1) / 2 = O(N^2).
So not starting from 0 does not affect the complexity (remember that big-oh ignores lower-order terms and constants). Therefore, even under this setting, the entire thing is O(N^3).
The if statement. The if statement is clearly irrelevant here, because it's only part of the last loop and contains no break statement or other code that would affect the loops. It only affects the incrementation of a count, not the execution of any of the loops, so we can safely ignore it. Even if the count isn't incremented (an O(1) operation), the if condition is checked (also an O(1) operation), so the same rough number of operations is performed with and without the if.
Therefore, even with the if statement, the algorithm is still O(N^3).
Order of growth of the code would be O(N^3).
In general k nested loops of length N contribute growth of O(N^k).
Here are two was to find that the time complexity is Theta(N^3) without much calculation.
First, you select i<j<k from the range 0 through N-1. The number of ways to choose 3 objects out of N is the binomial coefficient N choose 3 = N*(N-1)*(N-2)/(3*2*1) ~ (N^3)/6 = O(N^3), and more precisely Theta(N^3).
Second, an upper bound is that you choose i, j, and k from N possibilities, so there are at most N*N*N = N^3 choices. This is O(N^3). You can also find a lower bound of the same type since you can choose i from 0 through N/3-1, j from N/3 through 2N/3-1, and k from 2N/3 through N-1. This gives you at least floor(N/3)^3 choices, which is about N^3/27. Since you have an upper bound and lower bound of the same form, the time complexity is Theta(N^3).
It's diffcult for me to understand logarithmic complexity of algorithm.
For example
for(int j=1; j<=n; j*=2){
...
}
Its complexity is O(log2N)
So what if it is j*=3? The complexity will then be O(log3N)?
You could say yes as long as the loop body is O(1).
However, note that log3N = log2N / log23, so it is also O(log2N), since the constant factor does not matter.
Also note it is apparent from this argument, for any fixed constant k, O(logkN) is also O(log2N), since you could substitute 3 with k.
Basicly, yes.
Let's assume that your for loop looks like this:
for (int j = 1; j < n; j *= a) {...}
where a is some const.
If the for loop executes k times, then in the last iteration, j will be equal to ak. And since N = O(j) and j = O(ak), N = O(ak). It follows that k = O(logaN). Once again, for loop executes k times, so time complexity of this algorithm is O(k) = O(logaN).
As I understand, the complexity of an algorithm is a maximum number of operations performed while sorting. So, the complexity of Bubble sort should be a sum of arithmmetic progression (from 1 to n-1), not n^2.
The following implementation counts number of comparisons:
public int[] sort(int[] a) {
int operationsCount = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
for(int j = i + 1; j < a.length; j++) {
operationsCount++;
if (a[i] > a[j]) {
int temp = a[i];
a[i] = a[j];
a[j] = temp;
}
}
}
System.out.println(operationsCount);
return a;
}
The ouput for array with 10 elements is 45, so it's a sum of arithmetic progression from 1 to 9.
So why Bubble sort's complexity is n^2, not S(n-1) ?
This is because big-O notation describes the nature of the algorithm. The major term in the expansion (n-1) * (n-2) / 2 is n^2. And so as n increases all other terms become insignificant.
You are welcome to describe it more precisely, but for all intents and purposes the algorithm exhibits behaviour that is of the order n^2. That means if you graph the time complexity against n, you will see a parabolic growth curve.
Let's do a worst case analysis.
In the worst case, the if (a[i] > a[j]) test will always be true, so the next 3 lines of code will be executed in each loop step. The inner loop goes from j=i+1 to n-1, so it will execute Sum_{j=i+1}^{n-1}{k} elementary operations (where k is a constant number of operations that involve the creation of the temp variable, array indexing, and value copying). If you solve the summation, it gives a number of elementary operations that is equal to k(n-i-1). The external loop will repeat this k(n-i-1) elementary operations from i=0 to i=n-1 (ie. Sum_{i=0}^{n-1}{k(n-i-1)}). So, again, if you solve the summation you see that the final number of elementary operations is proportional to n^2. The algorithm is quadratic in the worst case.
As you are incrementing the variable operationsCount before running any code in the inner loop, we can say that k (the number of elementary operations executed inside the inner loop) in our previous analysis is 1. So, solving Sum_{i=0}^{n-1}{n-i-1} gives n^2/2 - n/2, and substituting n with 10 gives a final result of 45, just the same result that you got by running the code.
Worst case scenario:
indicates the longest running time performed by an algorithm given any input of size n
so we will consider the completely backward list for this worst-case scenario
int[] arr= new int[]{9,6,5,3,2};
Number of iteration or for loops required to completely sort it = n-1 //n - number of elements in the list
1st iteration requires (n-1) swapping + 2nd iteration requires (n-2) swapping + ……….. + (n-1)th iteration requires (n-(n-1)) swapping
i.e. (n-1) + (n-2) + ……….. +1 = n/2(a+l) //sum of AP
=n/2((n-1)+1)=n^2/2
so big O notation = O(n^2)
What is the complexity given for the following problem is O(n). Shouldn't it be
O(n^2)? That is because the outer loop is O(n) and inner is also O(n), therefore n*n = O(n^2)?
The answer sheet of this question states that the answer is O(n). How is that possible?
public static void q1d(int n) {
int count = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
count++;
for (int j = 0; j < n; j++) {
count++;
}
}
}
The complexity for the following problem is O(n^2), how can you obtain that? Can someone please elaborate?
public static void q1E(int n) {
int count = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
count++;
for (int j = 0; j < n/2; j++) {
count++;
}
}
}
Thanks
The first example is O(n^2), so it seems they've made a mistake. To calculate (informally) the second example, we can do n * (n/2) = (n^2)/2 = O(n^2). If this doesn't make sense, you need to go and brush up what the meaning of something being O(n^k) is.
The complexity of both code is O(n*n)
FIRST
The outer loop runs n times and the inner loop varies from 0 to n-1 times
so
total = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 ... + n
which if you add the arithmetic progression is n * ( n + 1 ) / 2 is O(n*n)
SECOND
The outer loop runs n times and the inner loop varies from 0 to n-1/2 times
so
total = 1 + 1/2 + 3/2 + 4/2 ... + n/2
which if you add the arithmetic progression is n * ( n + 1 ) / 4 is also O(n*n)
First case is definitely O(n^2)
The second is O(n^2) as well because you omit constants when calculate big O
Your answer sheet is wrong, the first algorithm is clearly O(n^2).
Big-Oh notation is "worst case" so when calculating the Big-Oh value, we generally ignore multiplications / divisions by constants.
That being said, your second example is also O(n^2) in the worst case because, although the inner loop is "only" 1/2 n, the n is the clear bounding factor. In practice the second algorithm will be less than O(n^2) operations -- but Big-Oh is intended to be a "worst case" (ie. maximal bounding) measurement, so the exact number of operations is ignored in favor of focusing on how the algorithm behaves as n approaches infinity.
Both are O(n^2). Your answer is wrong. Or you may have written the question incorrectly.