Is 2^n = Θ(4^n)?
I'm pretty sure that 2^n is not in Ω(4^n) thus not in Θ(4^n), but my university tutor says it is. This confused me a lot and I couldn't find a clear answer per Google.
2^n is NOT big-theta (Θ) of 4^n, this is because 2^n is NOT big-omega (Ω) of 4^n.
By definition, we have f(x) = Θ(g(x)) if and only if f(x) = O(g(x)) and f(x) = Ω(g(x)).
Claim
2^n is not Ω(4^n)
Proof
Suppose 2^n = Ω(4^n), then by definition of big-omega there exists constants c > 0 and n0 such that:
2^n ≥ c * 4^n for all n ≥ n0
By rearranging the inequality, we have:
(1/2)^n ≥ c for all n ≥ n0
But notice that as n → ∞, the left hand side of the inequality tends to 0, whereas the right hand side equals c > 0. Hence this inequality cannot hold for all n ≥ n0, so we have a contradiction! Therefore our assumption at the beginning must be wrong, therefore 2^n is not Ω(4^n).
Update
As mentioned by Ordous, your tutor may refer to the complexity class EXPTIME, in that frame of reference, both 2^n and 4^n are in the same class. Also note that we have 2^n = 4^(Θ(n)), which may also be what your tutor meant.
Yes: one way to see this is to notice 4^n = 2^(2n). So 2^n is the same complexity as 4^n (exponential) because n and 2n are the same complexity (linear).
In conclusion, the bases don't affect the complexity here; it only matters that the exponents are of the same complexity.
Edit: this answer only shows that 4^n and 2^n are of the same complexity, not that 2^n is big-Theta of 4^n: you're correct that this is not the case as there is no constant k such that k*n^2 >= n^4 for all n. At some point, n^4 will overtake k*n^2. (Acknowledgements to #chiwangc / #Ordous for highlighting the distinction in their answer/comment.)
Yes. Both have exponential complexity.
Yes theta is possible even though big omega did not satisfied but equality exist by using stirling approximation. hence (2^n)=θ(3^n).
Related
My professor recently brushed over the formal definition of Big O:
To be completely honest even after him explaining it to a few different students we all seem to still not understand it at its core. The problems in comprehension mostly occurred with the following examples we went through:
So far my reasoning is as follows:
When you multiply a function's highest term by a constant, you get a new function that eventually surpasses the initial function at a given n. He called this n a "witness" to the function O(g(n))
How is this c term created/found? He mentioned bounds a couple of times but didn't really specify what bounds signify or how to find them/use them.
I think I just need a more solid foundation of the formal definition and how these examples back up the definition.
I think that the way this definition is typically presented in terms of c values and n0's is needlessly confusing. What f(n) being O(g(n)) really means is that when you disregard constant and lower order terms, g(n) is an asymptotic upper bound for f(n) (for a function to g to asymptotically upper bound f just means that past a certain point g is always greater than or equal to f). Put another way, f(n) grows no faster than g(n) as n goes to infinity.
Big O itself is a little confusing, because f(n) = O(g(n)) doesn't mean that g(n) grows strictly faster than f(n). It means when you disregard constant and lower order terms, g(n) grows faster than f(n), or it grows at the same rate (strictly faster would be "little o"). A simple, formal way to put this concept is to say:
That is, for this limit to hold true, the highest order term of f(n) can be at most a constant multiple of the highest order term of g(n). f(n) is O(g(n)) iff it grows no faster than g(n).
For example, f(n) = n is in O(g(n) = n^2), because past a certain point n^2 is always bigger than n. The limit of n^2 over n is positive, so n is in O(n^2)
As another example, f(n) = 5n^2 + 2n is in O(g(n) = n^2), because in the limit, f(n) can only be about 5 times larger than g(n). It's not infinitely bigger: they grow at the same rate. To be precise, the limit of n^2 over 5n^2 + 3n is 1/5, which is more than zero, so 5n^2 + 3n is in O(n^2). Hopefully this limit based definition provides some intuition, as it is completely equivalent mathematically to the provided definition.
Finding a particular constant value c and x value n0 for which the provided inequality holds true is just a particular way of showing that in the limit as n goes to infinity, g(n) grows at least as fast as f(n): that f(n) is in O(g(n)). That is, if you've found a value past which c*g(n) is always greater than f(n), you've shown that f(n) grows no more than a constant multiple (c times) faster than g(n) (if f grew faster than g by more than a constant multiple, finding such a c and n0 would be impossible).
There's no real art to finding a particular c and n0 value to demonstrate f(n) = O(g(n)). They can be literally whatever positive values you need them to be to make the inequality true. In fact, if it is true that f(n) = O(g(n)) then you can pick any value you want for c and there will be some sufficiently large n0 value that makes the inequality true, or, similarly you could pick any n0 value you want, and if you make c big enough the inequality will become true (obeying the restrictions that c and n0 are both positive). That's why I don't really like this formalization of big O: it's needlessly particular and proofs involving it are somewhat arbitrary, distracting away from the main concept which is the behavior of f and g as n goes to infinity.
So, as for how to handle this in practice, using one of the example questions: why is n^2 + 3n in O(n^2)?
Answer: because the limit as n goes to infinity of n^2 / n^2 + 3n is 1, which is greater than 0.
Or, if you're wanting/needing to do it the other way, pick any positive value you want for n0, and evaluate f at that value. f(1) will always be easy enough:
f(1) = 1^2 + 3*1 = 4
Then find the constant you could multiply g(1) by to get the same value as f(1) (or, if not using n0 = 1 use whatever n0 for g that you used for f).
c*g(1) = 4
c*1^2 = 4
c = 4
Then, you just combine the statements into an assertion to show that there exists a positive n0 and a constant c such that cg(n) <= f(n) for all n >= n0.
n^2 + 3n <= (4)n^2 for all n >= 1, implying n^2 + 3n is in O(n^2)
If you're using this method of proof, the above statement you use to demonstrate the inequality should ideally be immediately obvious. If it's not, maybe you want to change your n0 so that the final statement is more clearly true. I think that showing the limit of the ratio g(n)/f(n) is positive is much clearer and more direct if that route is available to you, but it is up to you.
Moving to a negative example, it's quite easy with the limit method to show that f(n) is not in O(g(n)). To do so, you just show that the limit of g(n) / f(n) = 0. Using the third example question: is nlog(n) + 2n in O(n)?
To demonstrate it the other way, you actually have to show that there exists no positive pair of numbers n0, c such that for all n >= n0 f(n) <= cg(n).
Unfortunately showing that f(n) = nlogn + 2n is in O(nlogn) by using c=2, n0=8 demonstrates nothing about whether f(n) is in O(n) (showing a function is in a higher complexity class implies nothing about it not being a lower complexity class).
To see why this is the case, we could also show a(n) = n is in g(n) = nlogn using those same c and n0 values (n <= 2(nlog(n) for all n >= 8, implying n is in O(nlogn))`), and yet a(n)=n clearly is in O(n). That is to say, to show f(n)=nlogn + 2n is not in O(n) with this method, you can't just show that it is in O(nlogn). You would have to show that no matter what n0 you pick, you can never find a c value large enough such that f(n) >= c(n) for all n >= n0. Showing that such a pair of numbers does not exist is not impossible, but relatively speaking it's a tricky thing to do (and would probably itself involve limit equations, or a proof by contradiction).
To sum things up, f(n) is in O(g(n)) if the limit of g(n) over f(n) is positive, which means f(n) doesn't grow any faster than g(n). Similarly, finding a constant c and x value n0 beyond which cg(n) >= f(n) shows that f(n) cannot grow asymptotically faster than g(n), implying that when discarding constants and lower order terms, g(n) is a valid upper bound for f(n).
I'm wondering if an algorithm with an exponential worst time complexity, should always have that stated as O(2^n). For example, if I had an algorithm that's operations triple for each addition to the input size, would I write it's time complexity as O(3^n), or would it still be classified as O(2^n).
Any formal explanation would be greatly appreciated.
3^n != O(2^n).
Let us assume that it were true.
Then there exists constants c and n0 such that 3^n ≤ c * 2^n for all n ≥ n0.
The last requirement is equivalent to (3/2)^n ≤ c for all n ≥ n0.
However, (3/2)^n → ∞ as n → ∞, so (3/2)^n ≤ c cannot be true for all n ≥ n0 for any constant c.
No, O(2^n) and O(3^n) are different. If 3^n were O(2^n), there'd be a constant k such that 3^n <= k * 2^n for all large n. There's no such k because 3^n / 2^n is (3/2)^n which grows arbitrarily large.
I am struggling to understand why they are equal. Help would be appreciated.
I have tried saying how 2^n implies doubling n times but I am not sure how that is similar to a factorial.
To prove that 2n is O(n!), you need to show that 2n ≤ M·n!, for some constant M and all values of n ≥ C, where C is also some constant.
So let's choose M = 2 and C = 1.
For n = C, we see that 2n = 2 and M·n! = 2, so indeed in that base case the 2n ≤ M·n! is true.
Assuming it holds true for some n (≥ C), does it also hold for n+1? Yes, because if 2n ≤ M·n! then also 2n+1 ≤ M·(n+1)!
The left side gets multiplied with 2, while the right side gets multiplied with at least 2.
So this proves by induction that 2n ≤ M·n! for all n ≥ C, for the chosen values for M and C. By consequence 2n is O(n!).
2^n and n! are not "equal". In formal mathematics, there is an important distinction that is often overlooked when people say "function a is O of b". It just means that asymptotically, b is an upper bound of a. This means that, technically, n is O(n!), 1 is O(n!), etc. These are trivial examples. Likewise, n! is not O(2^n).
Informally, especially in computer science, the big O notation often
can be used somewhat differently to describe an asymptotic tight bound
where using big Theta Θ notation might be more factually appropriate
in a given context.
wikipedia
I'm fairly new to the Big-O stuff and I'm wondering what's the complexity of the algorithm.
I understand that every addition, if statement and variable initialization is O(1).
From my understanding first 'i' loop will run 'n' times and the second 'j' loop will run 'n^2' times. Now, the third 'k' loop is where I'm having issues.
Is it running '(n^3)/2' times since the average value of 'j' will be half of 'n'?
Does it mean the Big-O is O((n^3)/2)?
We can use Sigma notation to calculate the number of iterations of the inner-most basic operation of you algorithm, where we consider the sum = sum + A[k] to be a basic operation.
Now, how do we infer that T(n) is in O(n^3) in the last step, you ask?
Let's loosely define what we mean by Big-O notation:
f(n) = O(g(n)) means c · g(n) is an upper bound on f(n). Thus
there exists some constant c such that f(n) is always ≤ c · g(n),
for sufficiently large n (i.e. , n ≥ n0 for some constant n0).
I.e., we want to find some (non-unique) set of positive constants c and n0 such that the following holds
|f(n)| ≤ c · |g(n)|, for some constant c>0 (+)
for n sufficiently large (say, n>n0)
for some function g(n), which will show that f(n) is in O(g(n)).
Now, in our case, f(n) = T(n) = (n^3 - n^2) / 2, and we have:
f(n) = 0.5·n^3 - 0.5·n^2
{ n > 0 } => f(n) = 0.5·n^3 - 0.5·n^2 ≤ 0.5·n^3 ≤ n^3
=> f(n) ≤ 1·n^3 (++)
Now (++) is exactly (+) with c=1 (and choose n0 as, say, 1, n>n0=1), and hence, we have shown that f(n) = T(n) is in O(n^3).
From the somewhat formal derivation above it's apparent that any constants in function g(n) can just be extracted and included in the constant c in (+), hence you'll never (at least should not) see time complexity described as e.g. O((n^3)/2). When using Big-O notation, we're describing an upper bound on the asymptotic behaviour of the algorithm, hence only the dominant term is of interest (however not how this is scaled with constants).
So the answer to this question What is the difference between Θ(n) and O(n)?
states that "Basically when we say an algorithm is of O(n), it's also O(n2), O(n1000000), O(2n), ... but a Θ(n) algorithm is not Θ(n2)."
I understand Big O to represent upper bound or worst case with that I don't understand how O(n) is also O(n2) and the other cases worse than O(n).
Perhaps I have some fundamental misunderstandings. Please help me understand this as I have been struggling for a while.
Thanks.
It's helpful to think of what big-Oh means: if a function is O(n), then c*n, where c is some positive number, is the upper-bound. If c*n is an upper-bound, it's clear that for integers, c*n^2 would also be an upper-bound. Also c*n^3, c*n^4, c*n^1000, etc.
The below graph shows the growth of functions, which are upper bounds of the function "to the right" of it; i.e., it grows faster on smaller n.
Suppose the running time of your algorithm is T(n) = 3n + 6 (i.e., an arbitrary polynomial of order 1).
It's true that T(n) = O(n) because 3n + 6 < 4n for all n > 5 (to use the definition of big-oh notation). It's also true that T(n) = O(n^2) because 3n + 6 < n^2 for all n > 5 (to use the defintion again).
It's also true that T(n) = Θ(n) because, in addition to the proof that it was O(n), it is true that 3n + 6 > n for all n > 1. However, you cannot prove that 3n + 6 > c n^2 for any value of c for arbitrarily large n. (Proof sketch: lim (cn^2 - 3n - 6) > 0 as n -> infinity).
I understand Big O to represent upper bound or worst case with that I don't understand how O(n) is also O(n2) and the other cases worse than O(n).
Intuitively, an "upper bound of x" means that something will always be less than or equal to x. If something is less than or equal to x, it is also less than or equal to x^2 and x^1000, for large enough values of x. So x^2 and x^1000 can also be upper bounds.
This is what Big-oh represents: upper bounds.
When we say that f(n) = O(g(n)), we mean only that for all sufficiently large n, there exists a constant c such that f(n) <= cg(n). Note that if f(n) = O(g(n)), we can always choose a function h(n) bigger than g(n) and since g(n) is eventually less than h(n), we have f(n) <= cg(n) <= ch(n), so f(n) = O(h(n)) as well.
Note that the O bound is not tight. The theta bound is the intersection of O(g(n)) and Omega(g(n)), where Omega gives the lower bound (it's like O, the upper bound, but bounds from below instead). If f(n) is bounded below by g(n), and h(n) is bigger than g(n), then if follows that f(n) is not (necessarily) bounded below by h(n).