According to Wikibooks, the Andrew's algorithm runs in linear time if all the points are already sorted. We will take the case of sorted points.
However, in the pseudo code it says:
for i = 1, 2, ..., n:
while L contains at least two points and the sequence of last two points
of L and the point P[i] does not make a counter-clockwise turn:
remove the last point from L
append P[i] to L
Now, here we can see a for loop and a while loop nested inside of the for loop. According to my logic reasoning, if there is a loop inside a loop, it simply can not have in a linear time complexity.
Where am I making the mistake?
Thanks!
EDIT: By analyzing the code, I deduced following.
for i loop--------O(n)
while loop----O(i-2) worst case
remove----O(1)
append--------O(1)
Now, if the while loop had the time complexity of O(n), the overall complexity would be O(n^2). But because it is smaller, the overall complexity should be O((i-2) * n), which I think is bigger than O(n) because i increments to n...
I am not really sure how to calculate this correctly...
Well you do have linear complexity because:
For (i=1 ... n) grants an n factor to the complexity so until now O(n)
In the nested while loop you have the condition (L size >= 2 && it will also check if you do make a counter-clockwise turn(that should be done in constant time)). So this may apear to scale the complexity to a factor of n as well(that would produce an quadratic complexity O(n*n))
But now the thing is the body of the nested while loop can be executed at most N times because there you are pop-ing elements from L; and you are not pushing elements in L except once for every i. So in the execution of the algorithm the push(append) statement will be executed exactly N times and thus the POP(remove last element) can be executed at most N times regardless the fact it is nested in an enclosing for loop. Thus, the complexity remains O(n) = linear complexity.
Related
Let m be the size of Array A and n be the size of Array B. What is the complexity of the following while loop?
while (i<n && j<m){ if (some condition) i++ else j++}
Example for an array: A=[1,2,3,4] B=[1,2,3,4] the while loop executes at most 5+4 times O(m+n).
Example for an array: A=[1,2,3,4,7,8,9,10] B=[1,2,3,4] the while loop executes at most 4 times O(n).
I am not able to figure out how to represent the complexity of the while loop.
One common approach is to describe the worst-case time complexity. In your example, the worst-case time complexity is O(m + n), because no matter what some condition is during a given loop iteration, the total number of loop iterations is at most m + n.
If it's important to emphasize that the time complexity has a lesser upper bound in some cases, then you'll need to figure out what those cases are, and find a way to express them. (For example, if a given algorithm takes an array of size n and has worst-case O(n2) time, it might also be possible to describe it as "O(mn) time, where m is the number of distinct values in the array" — only if that's true, of course — where we've introduced an extra variable m to let us capture the impact on the performance of having more vs. fewer duplicate values.)
I'm trying to find out which is the Theta complexity of this algorithm.
(a is a list of integers)
def sttr(a):
for i in xrange(0,len(a)):
while s!=[] and a[i]>=a[s[-1]]:
s.pop()
s.append(i)
return s
On the one hand, I can say that append is being executed n (length of a array) times, so pop too and the last thing I should consider is the while condition which could be executed probably 2n times at most.
From this I can say that this algorithm is at most 4*n so it is THETA(n).
But isn't it amortised analysis?
On the other hand I can say this:
There are 2 nested cycles. The for cycle is being executed exactly n times. The while cycle could be executed at most n times since I have to remove item in each iteration. So the complexity is THETA(n*n).
I want to compute THETA but don't know which of these two options is correct. Could you give me advice?
The answer is THETA(n) and your arguments are correct.
This is not amortized analysis.
To get to amortized analysis you have to look at the inner loop. You can't easily say how fast the while will execute if you ignore the rest of the algorithm. Naive approach would be O(N) and that's correct since that's the maximum number of iterations. However, since we know that the total number of executions is O(N) (your argument) and that this will be executed N time we can say that the complexity of the inner loop is O(1) amortized.
I just studied how to find the prime factors of a number with this algorithm that basically works this way:
void printPrimeFactors(N) {
while N is even
print 2 as prime factor
N = N/2
// At this point N is odd
for all the ODDS i from 3 to sqrt(N)
while N is divisible by i
print i as prime factor
N = N / i
if N hasn't been divided by anything (i.e. it's still N)
N is prime
}
everything is clear but I'm not sure how to calculate the complexity in big-O of the program above.
Being the division the most expensive operation (I suppose), I'd say that as a worst-case there could be a maximum of log(N) divisions, but I'm not totally sure of this.
You can proceed as like this. First of all, we are only interested in the behavior of the application when N is really big. In that case, we can simplify a lot: if two parts have different asymptotic performance, we need only take the one that performs worst.
The first while can loop at most m times, where m is the smallest integer so that 2m >= N. Therefore it will loop, at worst, log2N times -- this means that it performs as O(log N). Note that the type of log is irrelevant when N is large enough.
The for loop runs O(sqrt N) times. At scale, this is way more massive than log N, so we can drop the log.
Finally, we need to evaluate the while inside the loop. Since this while loop is executed only for divisors, it will have a big O equal to their number. With a little thought we can see that, at worst, the while will loop log3N times because 3 is the smallest possible divisor.
Thus, the while loop gets executed only O(log N) times, but the outer for gets executed O(sqrt N) times (and often the while loop doesn't run because the current number won't divide).
In conclusion, the part that will take the longest is the for loop and this will make the algorithm go as O(sqrtN).
for i = 0 to size(arr)
for o = i + 1 to size(arr)
do stuff here
What's the worst-time complexity of this? It's not N^2, because the second one decreases by one every i loop. It's not N, it should be bigger. N-1 + N-2 + N-3 + ... + N-N+1.
It is N ^ 2, since it's the product of two linear complexities.
(There's a reason asymptotic complexity is called asymptotic and not identical...)
See Wikipedia's explanation on the simplifications made.
Think of it like you are working with a n x n matrix. You are approximately working on half of the elements in the matrix, but O(n^2/2) is the same as O(n^2).
When you want to determine the complexity class of an algorithm, all you need is to find the fastest growing term in the complexity function of the algorithm. For example, if you have complexity function f(n)=n^2-10000*n+400, to find O(f(n)), you just have to find the "strongest" term in the function. Why? Because for n big enough, only that term dictates the behavior of the entire function. Having said that, it is easy to see that both f1(n)=n^2-n-4 and f2(n)=n^2 are in O(n^2). However, they, for the same input size n, don't run for the same amount of time.
In your algorithm, if n=size(arr), the do stuff here code will run f(n)=n+(n-1)+(n-2)+...+2+1 times. It is easy to see that f(n) represents a sum of an arithmetic series, which means f(n)=n*(n+1)/2, i.e. f(n)=0.5*n^2+0.5*n. If we assume that do stuff here is O(1), then your algorithm has O(n^2) complexity.
for i = 0 to size(arr)
I assumed that the loop ends when i becomes greater than size(arr), not equal to. However, if the latter is the case, than f(n)=0.5*n^2-0.5*n, and it is still in O(n^2). Remember that O(1),O(n),0(n^2),... are complexity classes, and that complexity functions of algorithms are functions that describe, for the input size n, how many steps there is in the algorithm.
It's n*(n-1)/2 which is equal to O(n^2).
Below is some pseudocode I wrote that, given an array A and an integer value k, returns true if there are two different integers in A that sum to k, and returns false otherwise. I am trying to determine the time complexity of this algorithm.
I'm guessing that the complexity of this algorithm in the worst case is O(n^2). This is because the first for loop runs n times, and the for loop within this loop also runs n times. The if statement makes one comparison and returns a value if true, which are both constant time operations. The final return statement is also a constant time operation.
Am I correct in my guess? I'm new to algorithms and complexity, so please correct me if I went wrong anywhere!
Algorithm ArraySum(A, n, k)
for (i=0, i<n, i++)
for (j=i+1, j<n, j++)
if (A[i]+A[j]=k)
return true
return false
Azodious's reasoning is incorrect. The inner loop does not simply run n-1 times. Thus, you should not use (outer iterations)*(inner iterations) to compute the complexity.
The important thing to observe is, that the inner loop's runtime changes with each iteration of the outer loop.
It is correct, that the first time the loop runs, it will do n-1 iterations. But after that, the amount of iterations always decreases by one:
n - 1
n - 2
n - 3
…
2
1
We can use Gauss' trick (second formula) to sum this series to get n(n-1)/2 = (n² - n)/2. This is how many times the comparison runs in total in the worst case.
From this, we can see that the bound can not get any tighter than O(n²). As you can see, there is no need for guessing.
Note that you cannot provide a meaningful lower bound, because the algorithm may complete after any step. This implies the algorithm's best case is O(1).
Yes. In the worst case, your algorithm is O(n2).
Your algorithm is O(n2) because every instance of inputs needs time complexity O(n2).
Your algorithm is Ω(1) because there exist one instance of inputs only needs time complexity Ω(1).
Following appears in chapter 3, Growth of Function, of Introduction to Algorithms co-authored by Cormen, Leiserson, Rivest, and Stein.
When we say that the running time (no modifier) of an algorithm is Ω(g(n)), we mean that no mater what particular input of size n is chosen for each value of n, the running time on that input is at least a constant time g(n), for sufficiently large n.
Given an input in which the summation of first two elements is equal to k, this algorithm would take only one addition and one comparison before returning true.
Therefore, this input costs constant time complexity and make the running time of this algorithm Ω(1).
No matter what the input is, this algorithm would take at most n(n-1)/2 additions and n(n-1)/2 comparisons before returning value.
Therefore, the running time of this algorithm is O(n2)
In conclusion, we can say that the running time of this algorithm falls between Ω(1) and O(n2).
We could also say that worst-case running of this algorithm is Θ(n2).
You are right but let me explain a bit:
This is because the first for loop runs n times, and the for loop within this loop also runs n times.
Actually, the second loop will run for (n-i-1) times, but in terms of complexity it'll be taken as n only. (updated based on phant0m's comment)
So, in worst case scenerio, it'll run for n * (n-i-1) * 1 * 1 times. which is O(n^2).
in best case scenerio, it's run for 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 times, which is O(1) i.e. constant.