Assume f(x) goes to infinity as x tends to infinity and a,b>0. Find the f(x) that yields the lowest order for
as x tends to infinity.
By order I mean Big O and Little o notation.
I can only solve it roughly:
My solution: We can say ln(1+f(x)) is approximately equal to ln(f(x)) as x goes to infinity. Then, I have to minimize the order of
Since for any c>0, y+c/y is miminized when y =sqrt(c), b+ln f(x)}=sqrt(ax) is the anwer. Equivalently, f(x)=e^(sqrt(ax)-b) and the lowest order for g(x) is 2 sqrt(ax).
Can you help me obtain a rigorous answer?
The rigorous way to minimize (I should say extremize) a function of another function is to use the Euler-Lagrange relation:
Thus:
Taylor expansion:
If we only consider up to "constant" terms:
Which is of course the result you obtained.
Next, linear terms:
We can't solve this equation analytically; but we can explore the effect of a perturbation in the function f(x) (i.e. a small change in parameter to the previous solution). We can obviously ignore any linear changes to f, but we can add a positive multiplicative factor A:
sqrt(ax) and Af are obviously both positive, so the RHS has a negative sign. This means that ln(A) < 0, and thus A < 1, i.e. the new perturbed function gives a (slightly) tighter bound. Since the RHS must be vanishingly small (1/f), A must not be very much smaller than 1.
Going further, we can add another perturbation B to the exponent of f:
Since ln(A) and the RHS are both vanishing small, the B-term on LHS must be even smaller for the sign to be consistent.
So we can conclude that (1) A is very close to 1, (2) B is much smaller than 1, i.e. the result you obtained is in fact a very good upper bound.
The above also leads to the possibility of even tighter bounds for higher powers of f.
Related
Is it correct to write the following equalities writen in the image:
I'm not sure about the red marked passage.
Furtheremore, I know that constants are neglected such as O(12 log b) = O(log b).
Does this means that O(log b^12) = O(log b) ?
O(log b12) = O(log b) is correct for the reason you state in the question.
The derivation in the image is not correct, because O(f) is an empty set whenever f is a function taking negative values for arbitrarily large inputs. You cannot therefore discard a constant negative factor like -12, because this changes the sign of the function; in general O(f) and O(-f) are not the same, and (at least) one of them is an empty set (unless f is identically zero beyond some bound).
I'm looking for a speedy algorithm to find the roots of a univariate polynomial in a prime finite field.
That is, if f = a0 + a1x + a2x2 + ... + anxn (n > 0) then an algorithm that finds all r < p satisfying f(r) = 0 mod p, for a given prime p.
I found Chiens search algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chien_search but I can't imagine this being that fast for primes greater than 20 bits. Does anyone have experience with Chien's search algorithm or know a faster way? Is there a sympy module for this?
This is pretty well studied, as mcdowella's comment indicates. Here is how the Cantor-Zassenhaus random algorithm works for the case where you want to find the roots of a polynomial, instead of the more general factorization.
Note that in the ring of polynomials with coefficients mod p, the product x(x-1)(x-2)...(x-p+1) has all possible roots, and equals x^p-x by Fermat's Little Theorem and unique factorization in this ring.
Set g = GCD(f,x^p-x). Using Euclid's algorithm to compute the GCD of two polynomials is fast in general, taking a number of steps that is logarithmic in the maximum degree. It does not require you to factor the polynomials. g has the same roots as f in the field, and no repeated factors.
Because of the special form of x^p-x, with only two nonzero terms, the first step of Euclid's algorithm can be done by repeated squaring, in about 2 log_2 (p) steps involving only polynomials of degree no more than twice the degree of f, with coefficients mod p. We may compute x mod f, x^2 mod f, x^4 mod f, etc, then multiply together the terms corresponding to nonzero places in the binary expansion of p to compute x^p mod f, and finally subtract x.
Repeatedly do the following: Choose a random d in Z/p. Compute the GCD of g with r_d = (x+d)^((p-1)/2)-1, which we can again compute rapidly by Euclid's algorithm, using repeated squaring on the first step. If the degree of this GCD is strictly between 0 and the degree of g, we have found a nontrivial factor of g, and we can recurse until we have found the linear factors hence roots of g and thus f.
How often does this work? r_d has as roots the numbers that are d less than a nonzero square mod p. Consider two distinct roots of g, a and b, so (x-a) and (x-b) are factors of g. If a+d is a nonzero square, and b+d is not, then (x-a) is a common factor of g and r_d, while (x-b) is not, which means GCD(g,r_d) is a nontrivial factor of g. Similarly, if b+d is a nonzero square while a+d is not, then (x-b) is a common factor of g and r_d while (x-a) is not. By number theory, one case or the other happens close to half of the possible choices for d, which means that on average it takes a constant number of choices of d before we find a nontrivial factor of g, in fact one separating (x-a) from (x-b).
Your answers are good, but I think I found a wonderful method to find the roots modulo any number: This method based on "LATTICES". Let r ≤ R be a root of mod p. We must find another function such as h(x) such that h isn't large and r is root of h. Lattice method find this function. At the first time, we must create a basis of polynomial for lattice and then, with "LLL" algorithm, we find a "shortest vector" that has root r without modulo p. In fact, we eliminate modulo p with this way.
For more explanation, refer to "Coppersmith D. Finding small solutions to small degree polynomials. In Cryptography and lattices".
As part of a programming assignment I saw recently, students were asked to find the big O value of their function for solving a puzzle. I was bored, and decided to write the program myself. However, my solution uses a pattern I saw in the problem to skip large portions of the calculations.
Big O shows how the time increases based on a scaling n, but as n scales, once it reaches the resetting of the pattern, the time it takes resets back to low values as well. My thought was that it was O(nlogn % k) when k+1 is when it resets. Another thought is that as it has a hard limit, the value is O(1), since that is big O of any constant. Is one of those right, and if not, how should the limit be represented?
As an example of the reset, the k value is 31336.
At n=31336, it takes 31336 steps but at n=31337, it takes 1.
The code is:
def Entry(a1, q):
F = [a1]
lastnum = a1
q1 = q % 31336
rows = (q / 31336)
for i in range(1, q1):
lastnum = (lastnum * 31334) % 31337
F.append(lastnum)
F = MergeSort(F)
print lastnum * rows + F.index(lastnum) + 1
MergeSort is a standard merge sort with O(nlogn) complexity.
It's O(1) and you can derive this from big O's definition. If f(x) is the complexity of your solution, then:
with
and with any M > 470040 (it's nlogn for n = 31336) and x > 0. And this implies from the definition that:
Well, an easy way that I use to think about big-O problems is to think of n as so big it may as well be infinity. If you don't get particular about byte-level operations on very big numbers (because q % 31336 would scale up as q goes to infinity and is not actually constant), then your intuition is right about it being O(1).
Imagining q as close to infinity, you can see that q % 31336 is obviously between 0 and 31335, as you noted. This fact limits the number of array elements, which limits the sort time to be some constant amount (n * log(n) ==> 31335 * log(31335) * C, for some constant C). So it is constant time for the whole algorithm.
But, in the real world, multiplication, division, and modulus all do scale based on input size. You can look up Karatsuba algorithm if you are interested in figuring that out. I'll leave it as an exercise.
If there are a few different instances of this problem, each with its own k value, then the complexity of the method is not O(1), but instead O(k·ln k).
Given points in Euclidean space, is there a fast algorithm to count the number of points 'under' one arbitrary hyperplane? Fast means time complexity lower than O(n)
Time for preprocessing or sorting the points is okay
And, even if not high dimensional, I'd like to know whether there exists one that can be used in 2 dimension space
If you're willing to preprocess the points, then you have to visit each one at least once, which is O(n). If you consider a test of which side the point is on as part of the preprocessing then you've got an O(0) algorithm (with O(n) preprocessing). So I don't think this question makes sense as stated.
Nevertheless, I'll attempt to give a useful answer, even if it's not precisely what the OP asked for.
Choose a hyperplane unit normal and root point. If the plane is given in parametric form
(P - O).N == 0
then you have these already, just make sure the normal is unitized.
If it's given in analytic form: Sum(i = 1 to n: a[i] x[i]) + d = 0, then the vector A = (a1, ... a[n]) is a normal of the plane, and N = A/||A|| is the unit plane normal. A point O (for origin) on the plane is d N.
You can test which side each point P is on by projecting it onto N add checking the sign of the parameter:
Let V = P - O. V is the vector from the chosen origin O to P.
Let s N be the projection of V onto N. If s is negative, then P is "under" the hyperplane.
You should go to the link on vector projection if you're rusty on the subject, but I'll summarize here using my notation. Or, you can take my word for it, and just skip to the formula at the end.
If alpha is the angle between V and N, then from the definition of cosine we have cos(alpha) = s||N||/||V|| = s/||V|| since N is a unit normal. But we also know from vector algebra that cos(alpha) = ||V||(V.N), where "." is scalar product (a.k.a. dot product, or euclidean inner product).
Equating these two expressions for cos(alpha) we have
s = (V.V)(V.N)
(using the fact that ||V||^2 == V.V).
So your proprocesing work is to compute N and O, and your test is:
bool is_under = (dot(V, V)*dot(V, N) < 0.);
I don't believe it can be done any faster.
When setting the point values, use checking conditions at that point setting. Then increment or dont increment the counter. O(n)
I found O(logN) algorithm in 2D dimension by using divide-and-conquer and binary search with O(N log N) preprocessing time complexity and O(N log N) memory complexity
The basic idea is that points can be divided into left N/2 points and right N/2 points, and the number of points that's under the line(in 2D dimension) is sum of the number of left points under the line and the number of the right points under the line. I'll call the infinite line that divides whole points into 'left' and 'right' as 'dividing line'. Dividing line will be look like 'x = k'
If each 'left points' and 'right points' are sorted by y-axis order, then the number of specific points - the points at the right lower corner - can be quickly found by using binary searching 'the number of points whose y values are lower than the y value of intersection point of the line and the Dividing line'.
Therefore time complexity is
T(N) = 2T(N/2) + O(log N)
and finally the time complexity is O(log N)
Pollard Rho factorization method uses a function generator f(x) = x^2-a(mod n) or f(x) = x^2+a(mod n) , is the choice of this function (parabolic) has got any significance or we may use any function (cubic , polynomial or even linear) as we have to identify or find the numbers belonging to same congruence class modulo n to find the non trivial divisor ?
In Knuth Vol II (The Art Of Computer Programming - Seminumerical Algorithms) section 4.5.4 Knuth says
Furthermore if f(y) mod p behaves as a random mapping from the set {0,
1, ... p-1} into itself, exercise 3.1-12 shows that the average value
of the least such m will be of order sqrt(p)... From the theory in
Chapter 3, we know that a linear polynomial f(x) = ax + c will not be
sufficiently random for our purpose. The next simplest case is
quadratic, say f(x) = x^2 + 1. We don't know that this function is
sufficiently random, but our lack of knowledge tends to support the
hypothesis of randomness, and empirical tests show that this f does
work essentially as predicted
The probability theory that says that f(x) has a cycle of length about sqrt(p) assumes in particular that there can be two values y and z such that f(y) = f(z) - since f is chosen at random. The rho in Pollard Rho contains such a junction, with the cycle containing multiple lines leading on to it. For a linear function f(x) = ax + b then for gcd(a, p) = 1 mod p (which is likely since p is prime) f(y) = f(z) means that y = z mod p, so there are no such junctions.
If you look at http://www.agner.org/random/theory/chaosran.pdf you will see that the expected cycle length of a random function is about the sqrt of the state size, but the expected cycle length of a random bijection is about the state size. If you think of generating the random function only as you evaluate it you can see that if the function is entirely random then every value seen so far is available to be chosen again at random to find a cycle, so the odds of closing the cycle increase with the cycle length, but if the function has to be invertible the only way to close the cycle is to generate the starting point, which is much less likely.