I‘m trying to wrap my head around the meaning of the Landau-Notation in the context of analysing an algorithm‘s complexity.
What exactly does the O formally mean in Big-O-Notation?
So the way I understand it is that O(g(x)) gives a set of functions which grow as rapidly or slower as g(x), meaning, for example in the case of O(n^2):
where t(x) could be, for instance, x + 3 or x^2 + 5. Is my understanding correct?
Furthermore, are the following notations correct?
I saw the following written down by a tutor. What does this mean? How can you use less or equal, if the O-Notation returns a set?
Could I also write something like this?
So the way I understand it is that O(g(x)) gives a set of functions which grow as rapidly or slower as g(x).
This explanation of Big-Oh notation is correct.
f(n) = n^2 + 5n - 2, f(n) is an element of O(n^2)
Yes, we can say that. O(n^2) in plain English, represents "set of all functions that grow as rapidly as or slower than n^2". So, f(n) satisfies that requirement.
O(n) is a subset of O(n^2), O(n^2) is a subset of O(2^n)
This notation is correct and it comes from the definition. Any function that is in O(n), is also in O(n^2) since growth rate of it is slower than n^2. 2^n is an exponential time complexity, whereas n^2 is polynomial. You can take limit of n^2 / 2^n as n goes to infinity and prove that O(n^2) is a subset of O(2^n) since 2^n grows bigger.
O(n) <= O(n^2) <= O(2^n)
This notation is tricky. As explained here, we don't have "less than or equal to" for sets. I think tutor meant that time complexity for the functions belonging to the set O(n) is less than (or equal to) the time complexity for the functions belonging to the set O(n^2). Anyways, this notation doesn't really seem familiar, and it's best to avoid such ambiguities in textbooks.
O(g(x)) gives a set of functions which grow as rapidly or slower as g(x)
That's technically right, but a bit imprecise. A better description contains the addenda
O(g(x)) gives the set of functions which are asymptotically bounded above by g(x), up to constant factors.
This may seem like a nitpick, but one inference from the imprecise definition is wrong.
The 'fixed version' of your first equation, if you make the variables match up and have one limit sign, seems to be:
This is incorrect: the ratio only has to be less than or equal to some fixed constant c > 0.
Here is the correct version:
where c is some fixed positive real number, that does not depend on n.
For example, f(x) = 3 (n^2) is in O(n^2): one constant c that works for this f is c = 4. Note that the requirement isn't 'for all c > 0', but rather 'for at least one constant c > 0'
The rest of your remarks are accurate. The <= signs in that expression are an unusual usage, but it's true if <= means set inclusion. I wouldn't worry about that expression's meaning.
There's other, more subtle reasons to talk about 'boundedness' rather than growth rates. For instance, consider the cosine function. |cos(x)| is in O(1), but its derivative fluctuates from negative one to positive one even as x increases to infinity.
If you take 'growth rate' to mean something like the derivative, example like these become tricky to talk about, but saying |cos(x)| is bounded by 2 is clear.
For an even better example, consider the logistic curve. The logistic function is O(1), however, its derivative and growth rate (on positive numbers) is positive. It is strictly increasing/always growing, while 1 has a growth rate of 0. This seems to conflict with the first definition without lots of additional clarifying remarks of what 'grow' means.
An always growing function in O(1) (image from the Wikipedia link):
I understand that O(1) indicates an algorithm will take a constant amount of execution time regardless of the input dimensions. I also understand that O(N) indicates a linear increase in execution time proportional to the input dimension size.
However, I only know this due to memorizing their definitions. I have no intuition in interpreting O(1) and instead just recall that this means constant time execution. I'm curious how I can understand intuition when reading big O notation.
So for constant time execution O(1), what does the 1 represent? Why not have it be O(2)? 2 is also a constant that is independent of input size N.
The notation O(...) means a set of functions. Roughly speaking, O(f(n)) is the set of functions which don't grow asymptotically faster than f does.
The constant function f(n) = 1 doesn't grow at all, and neither does the constant function f(n) = 2, so neither grows asymptotically faster than the other. Also, any other function grows asymptotically faster than 1 if and only if it grows asymptotically faster than 2. So a function is in the set O(1) if and only if it is in the set O(2), meaning they are the same set.
This means you can write O(2) and it is strictly correct, but it is simpler (and hence conventional) to write O(1). You can think of this a bit like solving a maths problem where the answer is a fraction; you are expected to write the answer in its simplest form. Strictly speaking, 6/4 is equal to 3/2, but it is conventional to write 3/2.
Because when you are evaluating the complexity of a function, what matters for you is the variables. If you find any constant, you put it off.
For example:
for(int i = 0; i < 2 * N; i++){ print("Hello"); }
Your complexity is O(2N), but as what matters for you is the VARIABLES, you take the constants out of the equation, leaving O(N).
Now suppose this:
int a = b + c + d;
The complexity is obviously constant, but the number of operations isn't only 1, let's say it is 3 (2 operations and 1 attribution). Then you have O(3). We can safely say that O(3) = O(3 * N^0). We follow the same procedure of cutting of the constants, leaving us with O(N^0) = O(1).
Just to clarify, when we are evaluating complexities, we imagine that the variable will assume very big values, such big values that any multiplying constant wouldn't make a difference when the variable goes to infinite, that's why we put it off. The same thing holds for additive constants, for example O(5N + 3) = O(N).
You are free to use O(2), just like you can use O(33652 n²- log n).
At the risk of seeming weird.
I was on interview cake practicing some questions, and on question 2 the solution given uses two separate for loops (not nested) and the solution provider claims that he/she solved it in O(n) time. From my understanding that would be O(2n) time. Am I wrong in thinking this, or did the solution provider make a mistake?
Excerpt from interview cake :
Big-O notation gives you a hint on how do your algorithm execution time depends on the input data. When you see that time complexity is O(n) you understand that there is a linear dependency between input and execution time. The constants are not mentioned.
By definition Ο(g(n)) is a set of functions for each of which the following statement holds: There exists such positive constants c and n0 that 0 ≤ f(n) ≤ cg(n) holds for all n ≥ n0. You see the definition is using an arbitrary constant c, if your g(n) itself has a constant that would not make any difference.
Eventually we have: O(cg(n)) = O(g(n)). In your particular case O(cn) = O(2n) = O(n). They both represent the same set of functions.
Big-O notation is most useful to see how code scales. That is, if I double the size of the array, how much longer will the code take to run? If your code is O(n), it will take twice as long, whereas if it is O(n^2), it will take 4 times as long, and so on. In this case, regardless of the fact that you make a pass through the loop twice, doubling the size of your array will take twice as long as before (twice as long for each of the loops).
Our teacher gave us the following definition of Big O notation:
O(f(n)): A function g(n) is in O(f(n)) (“big O of f(n)”) if there exist
constants c > 0 and N such that |g(n)| ≤ c |f(n)| for all n > N.
I'm trying to tease apart the various components of this definition. First of all, I'm confused by what it means for g(n) to be in O(f(n)). What does in mean?
Next, I'm confused by the overall second portion of the statement. Why does saying that the absolute value of g(n) less than or equal f(n) for all n > N mean anything about Big O Notation?
My general intuition for what Big O Notation means is that it is a way to describe the runtime of an algorithm. For example, if bubble sort runs in O(n^2) in the worst case, this means that it takes the time of n^2 operations (in this case comparisons) to complete the algorithm. I don't see how this intuition follows from the above definition.
First of all, I'm confused by what it means for g(n) to be in O(f(n)). What does in mean?
In this formulation, O(f(n)) is a set of functions. Thus O(N) is the set of all functions that are (in simple terms) proportional to N as N tends to infinity.
The word "in" means ... "is a member of the set".
Why does saying that the absolute value of g(n) less than or equal f(n) for all n > N mean anything about Big O Notation?
It is the definition. And besides you have neglected the c term in your synopsis, and that is an important part of the definition.
My general intuition for what Big O Notation means is that it is a way to describe the runtime of an algorithm. For example, if bubble sort runs in O(n^2) in the worst case, this means that it takes the time of n^2 operations (in this case comparisons) to complete the algorithm. I don't see how this intuition follows from the above definition.
Your intuition is incorrect in two respects.
Firstly, the real definition of O(N^2) is NOT that it takes N^2 operations. it is that it takes proportional to N^2 operations. That's where the c comes into it.
Secondly, it is only proportional to N^2 for large enough values of N. Big O notation is not about what happens for small N. It is about what happens when the problem size scales up.
Also, as a a comment notes "proportional" is not quite the right phraseology here. It might be more correct to say "tends towards proportional" ... but in reality there isn't a simple english description of what is going on here. The real definition is the mathematical one.
If you now reread the definition in the light of that, you should see that it fits just nicely.
(Note that the definitions of Big O, and related measures of complexity can also be expressed in calculus terminology; i.e. using "limits". However, generally speaking the things we are talking about are quantized; i.e. an integer number instructions, an integer number bytes of storage, etc. Calculus is really about functions involving real numbers. Hence, you could argue that the formulation above is preferable. OTOH, a real mathematician would probably see bus-sized holes in this argumentation.)
O(g(n)) looks like a function, but it is actually a set of functions. If a function f is in O(g(n)), it means that g is an asymptotic upper bound on f to within a constant factor. O(g(n)) contains all functions that are bounded from above by g(n).
More specifically, there exists a constant c and n0 such that f(n) < c * g(n) for all n > n0. This means that c * g(n) will always overtake f(n) beyond some value of n. g is asymptotically larger than f; it scales faster.
This is used in the analysis of algorithms as follows. The running time of an algorithm is impossible to specify practically. It would obviously depend on the machine on which it runs. We need a way of talking about efficiency that is unconcerned with matters of hardware. One might naively suggest counting the steps executed by the algorithm and using that as the measure of running time, but this would depend on the granularity with which the algorithm is specified and so is no good either. Instead, we concern ourselves only with how quickly the running time (this hypothetical thing T(n)) scales with the size of the input n.
Thus, we can report the running time by saying something like:
My algorithm (algo1) has a running time T(n) that is in the set O(n^2). I.e. it's bounded from above by some constant multiple of n^2.
Some alternative algorithm (algo2) might have a time complexity of O(n), which we call linear. This may or may not be better for some particular input size or on some hardware, but there is one thing we can say for certain: as n tends to infinity, algo2 will out-perform algo1.
Practically then, one should favour algorithms with better time complexities, as they will tend to run faster.
This asymptotic notation may be applied to memory usage also.
So given the following program:
Is the time complexity of this program O(0)? In other words, is 0 O(0)?
I thought answering this in a separate question would shed some light on this question.
EDIT: Lots of good answers here! We all agree that 0 is O(1). The question is, is 0 O(0) as well?
From Wikipedia:
A description of a function in terms of big O notation usually only provides an upper bound on the growth rate of the function.
From this description, since the empty algorithm requires 0 time to execute, it has an upper bound performance of O(0). This means, it's also O(1), which happens to be a larger upper bound.
Edit:
More formally from CLR (1ed, pg 26):
For a given function g(n), we denote O(g(n)) the set of functions
O(g(n)) = { f(n): there exist positive constants c and n0 such that 0 ≤ f(n) ≤ cg(n) for all n ≥ n0 }
The asymptotic time performance of the empty algorithm, executing in 0 time regardless of the input, is therefore a member of O(0).
Edit 2:
We all agree that 0 is O(1). The question is, is 0 O(0) as well?
Based on the definitions, I say yes.
Furthermore, I think there's a bit more significance to the question than many answers indicate. By itself the empty algorithm is probably meaningless. However, whenever a non-trivial algorithm is specified, the empty algorithm could be thought of as lying between consecutive steps of the algorithm being specified as well as before and after the algorithm steps. It's nice to know that "nothingness" does not impact the algorithm's asymptotic time performance.
Edit 3:
Adam Crume makes the following claim:
For any function f(x), f(x) is in O(f(x)).
Proof: let S be a subset of R and T be a subset of R* (the non-negative real numbers) and let f(x):S ->T and c ≥ 1. Then 0 ≤ f(x) ≤ f(x) which leads to 0 ≤ f(x) ≤ cf(x) for all x∈S. Therefore f(x) ∈ O(f(x)).
Specifically, if f(x) = 0 then f(x) ∈ O(0).
It takes the same amount of time to run regardless of the input, therefore it is O(1) by definition.
Several answers say that the complexity is O(1) because the time is a constant and the time is bounded by the product of some coefficient and 1. Well, it is true that the time is a constant and it is bounded that way, but that doesn't mean that the best answer is O(1).
Consider an algorithm that runs in linear time. It is ordinarily designated as O(n) but let's play devil's advocate. The time is bounded by the product of some coefficient and n^2. If we consider O(n^2) to be a set, the set of all algorithms whose complexity is small enough, then linear algorithms are in that set. But it doesn't mean that the best answer is O(n^2).
The empty algorithm is in O(n^2) and in O(n) and in O(1) and in O(0). I vote for O(0).
I have a very simple argument for the empty algorithm being O(0): For any function f(x), f(x) is in O(f(x)). Simply let f(x)=0, and we have that 0 (the runtime of the empty algorithm) is in O(0).
On a side note, I hate it when people write f(x) = O(g(x)), when it should be f(x) ∈ O(g(x)).
Big O is asymptotic notation. To use big O, you need a function - in other words, the expression must be parametrized by n, even if n is not used. It makes no sense to say that the number 5 is O(n), it's the constant function f(n) = 5 that is O(n).
So, to analyze time complexity in terms of big O you need a function of n. Your algorithm always makes arguably 0 steps, but without a varying parameter talking about asymptotic behaviour makes no sense. Assume that your algorithm is parametrized by n. Only now you may use asymptotic notation. It makes no sense to say that it is O(n2), or even O(1), if you don't specify what is n (or the variable hidden in O(1))!
As soon as you settle on the number of steps, it's a matter of the definition of big O: the function f(n) = 0 is O(0).
Since this is a low-level question it depends on the model of computation.
Under "idealistic" assumptions, it is possible you don't do anything.
But in Python, you cannot say def f(x):, but only def f(x): pass. If you assume that every instruction, even pass (NOP), takes time, then the complexity is f(n) = c for some constant c, and unless c != 0 you can only say that f is O(1), not O(0).
It's worth noting big O by itself does not have anything to do with algorithms. For example, you may say sin x = x + O(x3) when discussing Taylor expansion. Also, O(1) does not mean constant, it means bounded by constant.
All of the answers so far address the question as if there is a right and a wrong answer. But there isn't. The question is a matter of definition. Usually in complexity theory the time cost is an integer --- although that too is just a definition. You're free to say that the empty algorithm that quits immediately takes 0 time steps or 1 time step. It's an abstract question because time complexity is an abstract definition. In the real world, you don't even have time steps, you have continuous physical time; it may be true that one CPU has clock cycles, but a parallel computer could easily have asynchronoous clocks and in any case a clock cycle is extremely small.
That said, I would say that it's more reasonable to say that the halt operation takes 1 time step rather than that it takes 0 time steps. It does seem more realistic. For many situations it's arguably very conservative, because the overhead of initialization is typically far greater than executing one arithmetic or logical operation. Giving the empty algorithm 0 time steps would only be reasonable to model, for example, a function call that is deleted by an optimizing compiler that knows that the function won't do anything.
It should be O(1). The coefficient is always 1.
Consider:
If something grows like 5n, you don't say O(5n), you say O(n) [in other words, O(1n)]
If something grows like 7n^2, you don't say O(7n^2), you say O(n^2) [in other words, O(1n^2)]
Likewise you should say O(1), not O(some other constant)
There is no such thing as O(0). Even an oracle machine or a hypercomputer require the time for one operation, i.e. solve(the_goldbach_conjecture), ergo:
All machines, theoretical or real, finite or infinite produce algorithms with a minimum time complexity of O(1).
But then again, this code right here is O(0):
// Hello world!
:)
I would say it's O(1) by definition, but O(0) if you want to get technical about it: since O(k1g(n)) is equivalent to O(k2g(n)) for any constants k1 and k2, it follows that O(1 * 1) is equivalent to O(0 * 1), and therefore O(0) is equivalent to O(1).
However, the empty algorithm is not like, for example, the identity function, whose definition is something like "return your input". The empty algorithm is more like an empty statement, or whatever happens between two statements. Its definition is "do absolutely nothing with your input", presumably without even the implied overhead of simply having input.
Consequently, the complexity of the empty algorithm is unique in that O(0) has a complexity of zero times whatever function strikes your fancy, or simply zero. It follows that since the whole business is so wacky, and since O(0) doesn't already mean something useful, and since it's slightly ridiculous to even discuss such things, a reasonable special case for O(0) is something like this:
The complexity of the empty algorithm is O(0) in time and space. An algorithm with time complexity O(0) is equivalent to the empty algorithm.
So there you go.
Given the formal definition of Big O:
Let f(x) and g(x) be two functions defined over the set of real numbers. Then, we write:
f(x) = O(g(x)) as x approaches infinity iff there exists a real M and a real x0 so that:
|f(x)| <= M * |g(x)| for every x > x0
As I see it, if we substitute g(x) = 0 (in order to have a program with complexity O(0)), we must have:
|f(x)| <= 0, for every x > x0 (the constraint of existence of a real M and x0 is practically lifted here)
which can only be true when f(x) = 0.
So I would say that not only the empty program is O(0), but it is the only one for which that holds. Intuitively, this should've been true since O(1) encompasses all algorithms that require a constant number of steps regardless of the size of its task, including 0. It's essentially useless to talk about O(0); it's already in O(1). I suspect it's purely out of simplicity of definition that we use O(1), where it could as well be O(c) or something similar.
0 = O(f) for all function f, since 0 <= |f|, so it is also O(0).
Not only is this a perfectly sensible question, but it is important in certain situations involving amortized analysis, especially when "cost" means something other than "time" (for example, "atomic instructions").
Let's say there is a datastructure featuring multiple operation types, for which an amortized analysis is being conducted. It could well happen that one type of operation can always be funded fully using "coins" deposited during previous operations.
There is a simple example of this: the "multipop queue" described in Cormen, Leiserson, Rivest, Stein [CLRS09, 17.2, p. 457], and also on Wikipedia. Each time an item is pushed, a coin is put on the item, for a total amortized cost of 2. When (multi) pops occur, they can be fully paid for by taking one coin from each item popped, so the amortized cost of MULTIPOP(k) is O(0). To wit:
Note that the amortized cost of MULTIPOP is a constant (0)
...
Moreover, we can also charge MULTIPOP operations nothing. To pop the
first plate, we take the dollar of credit off the plate and use it to
pay the actual cost of a POP operation. To pop a second plate, we
again have a dollar of credit on the plate to pay for the POP
operation, and so on. Thus, we have always charged enough up front to
pay for MULTIPOP operations. In other words, since each plate on the
stack has 1 dollar of credit on it, and the stack always has a
nonnegative number of plates, we have ensured that the amount of
credit is always nonnegative.
Thus O(0) is an important "complexity class" for certain amortized operations.
O(1) means the algorithm's time complexity is always constant.
Let's say we have this algorithm (in C):
void doSomething(int[] n)
{
int x = n[0]; // This line is accessing an array position, so it is time consuming.
int y = n[1]; // Same here.
return x + y;
}
I am ignoring the fact that the array could have less than 2 positions, just to keep it simple.
If we count the 2 most expensive lines, we have a total time of 2.
2 = O(1), because:
2 <= c * 1, if c = 2, for every n > 1
If we have this code:
public void doNothing(){}
And we count it as having 0 expansive lines, there is no difference in saying it has O(0) O(1), or O(1000), because for every one of these functions, we can prove the same theorem.
Normally, if the algorithm takes a constant number of steps to complete, we say it has O(1) time complexity.
I guess this is just a convention, because you could use any constant number to represent the function inside the O().
No. It's O(c) by convention whenever you don't have dependence on input size, where c is any positive constant (typically 1 is used - O(1) = O(12.37)).