I would like to know, because I couldn't find any information online, how is an algorithm like O(n * m^2) or O(n * k) or O(n + k) supposed to be analysed?
Does only the n count?
The other terms are superfluous?
So O(n * m^2) is actually O(n)?
No, here the k and m terms are not superfluous,they do have a valid existence and essential for computing time complexity. They are wrapped together to provide a concrete-complexity to the code.
It may seem like the terms n and k are independent to each other in the code,but,they both combinedly determines the complexity of the algorithm.
Say, if you've to iterate a loop of size n-elements, and, in between, you have another loop of k-iterations, then the overall complexity turns O(nk).
Complexity of order O(nk), you can't dump/discard k here.
for(i=0;i<n;i++)
for(j=0;j<k;j++)
// do something
Complexity of order O(n+k), you can't dump/discard k here.
for(i=0;i<n;i++)
// do something
for(j=0;j<k;j++)
// do something
Complexity of order O(nm^2), you can't dump/discard m here.
for(i=0;i<n;i++)
for(j=0;j<m;j++)
for(k=0;k<m;k++)
// do something
Answer to the last question---So O(n.m^2) is actually O(n)?
No,O(nm^2) complexity can't be reduced further to O(n) as that would mean m doesn't have any significance,which is not the case actually.
FORMALLY: O(f(n)) is the SET of ALL functions T(n) that satisfy:
There exist positive constants c and N such that, for all n >= N,
T(n) <= c f(n)
Here are some examples of when and why factors other than n matter.
[1] 1,000,000 n is in O(n). Proof: set c = 1,000,000, N = 0.
Big-Oh notation doesn't care about (most) constant factors. We generally leave constants out; it's unnecessary to write O(2n), because O(2n) = O(n). (The 2 is not wrong; just unnecessary.)
[2] n is in O(n^3). [That's n cubed]. Proof: set c = 1, N = 1.
Big-Oh notation can be misleading. Just because an algorithm's running time is in O(n^3) doesn't mean it's slow; it might also be in O(n). Big-Oh notation only gives us an UPPER BOUND on a function.
[3] n^3 + n^2 + n is in O(n^3). Proof: set c = 3, N = 1.
Big-Oh notation is usually used only to indicate the dominating (largest
and most displeasing) term in the function. The other terms become
insignificant when n is really big.
These aren't generalizable, and each case may be different. That's the answer to the questions: "Does only the n count? The other terms are superfluous?"
Although there is already an accepted answer, I'd still like to provide the following inputs :
O(n * m^2) : Can be viewed as n*m*m and assuming that the bounds for n and m are similar then the complexity would be O(n^3).
Similarly -
O(n * k) : Would be O(n^2) (with the bounds for n and k being similar)
and -
O(n + k) : Would be O(n) (again, with the bounds for n and k being similar).
PS: It would be better not to assume the similarity between the variables and to first understand how the variables relate to each other (Eg: m=n/2; k=2n) before attempting to conclude.
Related
Are these two equal? I read somewhere that O(2lg n) = O(n). Going by this observation, I'm guessing the answer would be no, but I'm not entirely sure. I'd appreciate any help.
Firstly, O(2log(n)) isn't equal to O(n).
To use big O notation, you would find a function that represents the complexity of your algorithm, then you would find the term in that function with the largest growth rate. Finally, you would eliminate any constant factors you could.
e.g. say your algorithm iterates 4n^2 + 5n + 1 times, where n is the size of the input. First, you would take the term with the highest growth rate, in this case 4n^2, then remove any constant factors, leaving O(n^2) complexity.
In your example, O(2log(n)) can be simplified to O(log(n))
Now on to your question.
In computer science, unless specified otherwise, you can generally assume that log(n) actually means the log of n, base 2.
This means, using log laws, 2^log(n) can be simplified to O(n)
Proof:
y = 2^log(n)
log(y) = log(2^log(n))
log(y) = log(n) * log(2) [Log(2) = 1 since we are talking about base 2 here]
log(y) = log(n)
y = n
I am just a bit confused. If time complexity of an algorithm is given by
what is that in big O notation? Just or we keep the log?
If that's the time-complexity of the algorithm, then it is in big-O notation already, so, yes, keep the log. Asymptotically, there is a difference between O(n^2) and O((n^2)*log(n)).
A formal mathematical proof would be nice here.
Let's define following variables and functions:
N - input length of the algorithm,
f(N) = N^2*ln(N) - a function that computes algorithm's execution time.
Let's determine whether growth of this function is asymptotically bounded by O(N^2).
According to the definition of the asymptotic notation [1], g(x) is an asymptotic bound for f(x) if and only if: for all sufficiently large values of x, the absolute value of f(x) is at most a positive constant multiple of g(x). That is, f(x) = O(g(x)) if and only if there exists a positive real number M and a real number x0 such that
|f(x)| <= M*g(x) for all x >= x0 (1)
In our case, there must exists a positive real number M and a real number N0 such that:
|N^2*ln(N)| <= M*N^2 for all N >= N0 (2)
Obviously, such M and x0 do not exist, because for any arbitrary large M there is N0, such that
ln(N) > M for all N >= N0 (3)
Thus, we have proved that N^2*ln(N) is not asymptotically bounded by O(N^2).
References:
1: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation
A simple way to understand the big O notation is to divide the actual number of atomic steps by the term withing the big O and validate you get a constant (or a value that is smaller than some constant).
for example if your algorithm does 10n²⋅logn steps:
10n²⋅logn/n² = 10 log n -> not constant in n -> 10n²⋅log n is not O(n²)
10n²⋅logn/(n²⋅log n) = 10 -> constant in n -> 10n²⋅log n is O(n²⋅logn)
You do keep the log because log(n) will increase as n increases and will in turn increase your overall complexity since it is multiplied.
As a general rule, you would only remove constants. So for example, if you had O(2 * n^2), you would just say the complexity is O(n^2) because running it on a machine that is twice more powerful shouldn't influence the complexity.
In the same way, if you had complexity O(n^2 + n^2) you would get to the above case and just say it's O(n^2). Since O(log(n)) is more optimal than O(n^2), if you had O(n^2 + log(n)), you would say the complexity is O(n^2) because it's even less than having O(2 * n^2).
O(n^2 * log(n)) does not fall into the above situation so you should not simplify it.
if complexity of some algorithm =O(n^2) it can be written as O(n*n). is it O(n)?absolutely not. so O(n^2*logn) is not O(n^2).what you may want to know is that O(n^2+logn)=O(n^2).
A simple explanation :
O(n2 + n) can be written as O(n2) because when we increase n, the difference between n2 + n and n2 becomes non-existent. Thus it can be written O(n2).
Meanwhile, in O(n2logn) as the n increases, the difference between n2 and n2logn will increase unlike the above case.
Therefore, logn stays.
If I understand Big-O notation correctly, k should be a constant time for the efficiency of an algorithm. Why would a constant time be considered O(1) rather than O(k), considering it takes a variable time? Linear growth ( O(n + k) ) uses this variable to shift the time right by a specific amount of time, so why not the same for constant complexity?
There is no such linear growth asymptotic O(n + k) where k is a constant. If k were a constant and you went back to the limit representation of algorithmic growth rates, you'd see that O(n + k) = O(n) because constants drop out in limits.
Your answer may be O(n + k) due to a variable k that is fundamentally independent of the other input set n. You see this commonly in compares vs moves in sorting algorithm analysis.
To try to answer your question about why we drop k in Big-O notation (which I think is taught poorly, leading to all this confusion), one definition (as I recall) of O() is as follows:
Read: f(n) is in O( g(n) ) iff there exists d and n_0 where for all n > n_0,
f(n) <= d * g(n)
Let's try to apply it to our problem here where k is a constant and thus f(x) = k and g(x) = 1.
Is there a d and n_0 that exist to satisfy these requirements?
Trivially, the answer is of course yes. Choose d > k and for n > 0, the definition holds.
So, clearly, log(n) is O(n). But, what about (log(n))^2? What about sqrt(n) or log(n)—what bounds what?
There's a family of comparisons like this:
nᵃ (vs.) (log(n))ᵇ
I run into these comparisons a lot, and I've never come up with a good way to solve them. Hints for tactics for solving the general case?
[EDIT: I'm not talking about the computational complexity of calculating the values of these functions. I'm talking about the functions themselves. E.g., f(n) = n is an upper bound on g(n) = log(n) because f(n) ≤ c g(n) for c = 1 and n₀ > 0.]
log(n)^a is always O(n^b), for any positive constants a, b.
Are you looking for a proof? All such problems can be reduced to seeing that log(n) is O(n), by the following trick:
log(n)^a = O(n^b) is equivalent to:
log(n) = O(n^{b/a}), since raising to the 1/a power is an increasing function.
This is equivalent to
log(m^{a/b}) = O(m), by setting m = n^{b/a}.
This is equivalent to log(m) = O(m), since log(m^{a/b}) = (a/b)*log(m).
You can prove that log(n) = O(n) by induction, focusing on the case where n is a power of 2.
log n -- O(log n)
sqrt n -- O(sqrt n)
n^2 -- O(n^2)
(log n)^2 -- O((log n)^2)
n^a versus (log(n))^b
You need either bases or powers the same. So use your math to change n^a to log(n)^(whatever it gets to get this base) or (whatever it gets to get this power)^b. There is no general case
I run into these comparisons a lot (...)
Hints for tactics for solving the general case?
As you as about general case and that you following a lot into such questions. Here is what I recommend :
Use limit definition of BigO notation, once you know:
f(n) = O(g(n)) iff limit (n approaches +inf) f(n)/g(n) exists and is not +inf
You can use Computer Algebra System, for example opensource Maxima, here is in Maxima documentation about limits .
For more detailed info and example - check out THIS answer
if T(n) is O(n), then it is also correct to say T(n) is O(n2) ?
Yes; because O(n) is a subset of O(n^2).
Assuming
T(n) = O(n), n > 0
Then both of the following are true
T(n) = O(2n)
T(n) = O(n2)
This is because both 2n and n2 grow as quickly as or more quickly than just plain n. EDIT: As Philip correctly notes in the comments, even a value smaller than 1 can be the multiplier of n, since constant terms may be dropped (they become insignificant for large values of n; EDIT 2: as Oli says, all constants are insignificant per the definition of O). Thus the following is also true:
T(n) = O(0.2n)
In fact, n2 grows so quickly that you can also say
T(n) = o(n2)
But not
T(n) = Θ(n2)
because the functions given provide an asymptotic upper bound, not an asymptotically tight bound.
if you mean O(2 * N) then yes O(n) == O(2n). The time taken is a linear function of the input data in both cases
I disagree with the other answer that says O(N) = O(N*N). It is true that the O(N) function will finish in less time than O(N*N), but the completion time is not a function of n*n so it really isnt true
I suppose the answer depends on why u r asking the question
O also known as Big-Oh is a upper bound. We can say that there exists a C such that, for all n > N, T(n) < C g(n). Where C is a constant.
So until an unless the large co-efficient in T(n) is smaller or equal to g(n) then that statement is always valid.