Please don't confuse the question with recursive fibonacci, which has the complexity 2^n.
This is the fibonacci iterative code i use :
def f(n):
a, b = 0, 1
for i in range(0, n):
a, b = b, a + b
return a
I tried to find the complexity and i got it T(n) = n * 4 + 4 = 4n + 4, but the graph that i got is no linear at all and is more of a n^2. For example:
print(timerf(250000)/timerf(50000))
This gives me result around 25.
I plotted a figure:
This shows that the fibonacci iterative method should be with complexity n^2. How to explain this?
Iterative method complexity is O(n)*cost_of_addition
Usually people assume cost_of_addition to be a constant, but in case of Fibonacci numbers we quickly outgrow this assumption.
Since F(n) grows exponentially, number of digits in it is O(n). So the resulting complexity is O(n^2).
Maybe the reason is that addition of integers does not take constant time but linear - O(number of bits)
Related
I very well know that recursive Fib(n) has time complexity of O(2^n). I am also able to come to that result by solving the following
T(n) = T(n-1)+T(n-2).
But when I take an example I get stuck. For eg: n=4
acc to recursive solution
T(1) = u #some constant
and, T(2) = u #some constant
Now, T(4) = T(3)+T(2)
= T(2)+T(1)+u
= u+u+u
= 3u
I was expecting the result to be 16u.
The Big-O notation is related to the asymptotic complexity, so we are interested in how the complexity grows for big numbers.
Big-O refers actually to an upper limit for the growth of a function. Formally, O(g) is a set of functions that are growing not faster than k*g.
Let me give you a few examples of functions that are in O(2^n):
2^n
2^n - 1000000000000n
2^n - 100
2^n + 1.5^n + n^100
The fact that T(n) in O(2^n) doesn't mean, that the number of operations will be exactly 2^n.
It only means, that the limit of the supremum of a sequence |T(n)/(2^n)| as n -> inf is finite.
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.
I'm studying for an exam which is mostly about the time complexity. I've encountered a problem while solving these four questions.
1) if we prove that an algorithm has a time complexity of theta(n^2), is it possible that it takes him the time calculation of O(n) for ALL inputs?
2) if we prove that an algorithm has a time complexity of theta(n^2), is it possible that it takes him the time calculation of O(n) for SOME inputs?
3) if we prove that an algorithm has a time complexity of O(n^2), is it possible that it takes him the time calculation of O(n) for SOME inputs?
4) if we prove that an algorithm has a time complexity of O(n^2), is it possible that it takes him the time calculation of O(n) for ALL inputs?
can anyone tell me how to answer such questions. I'm mostly confused when they ask for "all" or "some" inputs.
thanks
gkovacs90 answer provides a good link : WIKI
T(n) = O(n3), means T(n) grows asymptotically no faster than n3. A constant k>0 exists and for all n>N , T(n) < k*n3
T(n) = Θ(n3), means T(n) grows asymptotically as fast as n3. Two constants k1, k2 >0 exist and for all n>N , k1*n3 < T(n) < k2*n3
so if T(n) = n3 + 2*n + 3
Then T(n) = Θ(n3) is more appropriate than T(n) = O(n3) since we have more information about the way T(n) behaves asymptotically.
T(n) = Θ(n3) means that for n>N the curve of T(n) will "approach" and "stay close" to the curve of k*n3, with k>0.
T(n) = O(n3) means that for n>N the curve of T(n) will always be under to the curve of k*n3, with k>0.
1:No
2:Yes, as gkovacs90 says, for small values of n you can have O(n) time calculation but I would say No for big enough inputs. The notations Theta and Big-O only mean something asymptotically
3:Yes
4:Yes
Example for number 4 (dumm but still true) : for an Array A : Int[] compute the sum of the values. Your algorithm certainly will be :
Given A an Int Array
sum=0
for int a in A
sum = sum + a
end for
return sum
If n is the length of the array A : The time complexity is T(n) = n. So T(n) = O(n2) since T(n) will not grow faster than n2. And still we have for all array a time calculation of O(n).
If you find such a result for a time (or memory) complexity. Then you can (and certainly you must) refine the Big-O / Theta of your function (here obviously we have : Θ(n))
Some last points :
T(n)=Θ(g(n)) implies T(n)=O(g(n)).
In computational complexity theory, the complexity is sometimes computed for best, worst and average cases.
A "barfoot" explanation:
Big O notation is for setting an upper bound. By definition, there is always an index(or an input-length) from wich the notation is correct. So below this index, anything can happen.
For example sorting an array(O(n^2)) with one element takes less time, than writing the elements to the output(O(n)). ( we don't sort, we know it is in the right order, so it takes 0 time ).
So the answers:
1: No
2: Yes
3: Yes
4: Yes
You can find a detailed understandable description at WIKI
And HERE You can find a simpler explanation.
For 3-way Quicksort (dual-pivot quicksort), how would I go about finding the Big-O bound? Could anyone show me how to derive it?
There's a subtle difference between finding the complexity of an algorithm and proving it.
To find the complexity of this algorithm, you can do as amit said in the other answer: you know that in average, you split your problem of size n into three smaller problems of size n/3, so you will get, in è log_3(n)` steps in average, to problems of size 1. With experience, you will start getting the feeling of this approach and be able to deduce the complexity of algorithms just by thinking about them in terms of subproblems involved.
To prove that this algorithm runs in O(nlogn) in the average case, you use the Master Theorem. To use it, you have to write the recursion formula giving the time spent sorting your array. As we said, sorting an array of size n can be decomposed into sorting three arrays of sizes n/3 plus the time spent building them. This can be written as follows:
T(n) = 3T(n/3) + f(n)
Where T(n) is a function giving the resolution "time" for an input of size n (actually the number of elementary operations needed), and f(n) gives the "time" needed to split the problem into subproblems.
For 3-Way quicksort, f(n) = c*n because you go through the array, check where to place each item and eventually make a swap. This places us in Case 2 of the Master Theorem, which states that if f(n) = O(n^(log_b(a)) log^k(n)) for some k >= 0 (in our case k = 0) then
T(n) = O(n^(log_b(a)) log^(k+1)(n)))
As a = 3 and b = 3 (we get these from the recurrence relation, T(n) = aT(n/b)), this simplifies to
T(n) = O(n log n)
And that's a proof.
Well, the same prove actually holds.
Each iteration splits the array into 3 sublists, on average the size of these sublists is n/3 each.
Thus - number of iterations needed is log_3(n) because you need to find number of times you do (((n/3) /3) /3) ... until you get to one. This gives you the formula:
n/(3^i) = 1
Which is satisfied for i = log_3(n).
Each iteration is still going over all the input (but in a different sublist) - same as quicksort, which gives you O(n*log_3(n)).
Since log_3(n) = log(n)/log(3) = log(n) * CONSTANT, you get that the run time is O(nlogn) on average.
Note, even if you take a more pessimistic approach to calculate the size of the sublists, by taking minimum of uniform distribution - it will still get you first sublist of size 1/4, 2nd sublist of size 1/2, and last sublist of size 1/4 (minimum and maximum of uniform distribution), which will again decay to log_k(n) iterations (with a different k>2) - which will yield O(nlogn) overall - again.
Formally, the proof will be something like:
Each iteration takes at most c_1* n ops to run, for each n>N_1, for some constants c_1,N_1. (Definition of big O notation, and the claim that each iteration is O(n) excluding recursion. Convince yourself why this is true. Note that in here - "iteration" means all iterations done by the algorithm in a certain "level", and not in a single recursive invokation).
As seen above, you have log_3(n) = log(n)/log(3) iterations on average case (taking the optimistic version here, same principles for pessimistic can be used)
Now, we get that the running time T(n) of the algorithm is:
for each n > N_1:
T(n) <= c_1 * n * log(n)/log(3)
T(n) <= c_1 * nlogn
By definition of big O notation, it means T(n) is in O(nlogn) with M = c_1 and N = N_1.
QED
What's the complexity of a recursive program to find factorial of a number n? My hunch is that it might be O(n).
If you take multiplication as O(1), then yes, O(N) is correct. However, note that multiplying two numbers of arbitrary length x is not O(1) on finite hardware -- as x tends to infinity, the time needed for multiplication grows (e.g. if you use Karatsuba multiplication, it's O(x ** 1.585)).
You can theoretically do better for sufficiently huge numbers with Schönhage-Strassen, but I confess I have no real world experience with that one. x, the "length" or "number of digits" (in whatever base, doesn't matter for big-O anyway of N, grows with O(log N), of course.
If you mean to limit your question to factorials of numbers short enough to be multiplied in O(1), then there's no way N can "tend to infinity" and therefore big-O notation is inappropriate.
Assuming you're talking about the most naive factorial algorithm ever:
factorial (n):
if (n = 0) then return 1
otherwise return n * factorial(n-1)
Yes, the algorithm is linear, running in O(n) time. This is the case because it executes once every time it decrements the value n, and it decrements the value n until it reaches 0, meaning the function is called recursively n times. This is assuming, of course, that both decrementation and multiplication are constant operations.
Of course, if you implement factorial some other way (for example, using addition recursively instead of multiplication), you can end up with a much more time-complex algorithm. I wouldn't advise using such an algorithm, though.
When you express the complexity of an algorithm, it is always as a function of the input size. It is only valid to assume that multiplication is an O(1) operation if the numbers that you are multiplying are of fixed size. For example, if you wanted to determine the complexity of an algorithm that computes matrix products, you might assume that the individual components of the matrices were of fixed size. Then it would be valid to assume that multiplication of two individual matrix components was O(1), and you would compute the complexity according to the number of entries in each matrix.
However, when you want to figure out the complexity of an algorithm to compute N! you have to assume that N can be arbitrarily large, so it is not valid to assume that multiplication is an O(1) operation.
If you want to multiply an n-bit number with an m-bit number the naive algorithm (the kind you do by hand) takes time O(mn), but there are faster algorithms.
If you want to analyze the complexity of the easy algorithm for computing N!
factorial(N)
f=1
for i = 2 to N
f=f*i
return f
then at the k-th step in the for loop, you are multiplying (k-1)! by k. The number of bits used to represent (k-1)! is O(k log k) and the number of bits used to represent k is O(log k). So the time required to multiply (k-1)! and k is O(k (log k)^2) (assuming you use the naive multiplication algorithm). Then the total amount of time taken by the algorithm is the sum of the time taken at each step:
sum k = 1 to N [k (log k)^2] <= (log N)^2 * (sum k = 1 to N [k]) =
O(N^2 (log N)^2)
You could improve this performance by using a faster multiplication algorithm, like Schönhage-Strassen which takes time O(n*log(n)*log(log(n))) for 2 n-bit numbers.
The other way to improve performance is to use a better algorithm to compute N!. The fastest one that I know of first computes the prime factorization of N! and then multiplies all the prime factors.
The time-complexity of recursive factorial would be:
factorial (n) {
if (n = 0)
return 1
else
return n * factorial(n-1)
}
So,
The time complexity for one recursive call would be:
T(n) = T(n-1) + 3 (3 is for As we have to do three constant operations like
multiplication,subtraction and checking the value of n in each recursive
call)
= T(n-2) + 6 (Second recursive call)
= T(n-3) + 9 (Third recursive call)
.
.
.
.
= T(n-k) + 3k
till, k = n
Then,
= T(n-n) + 3n
= T(0) + 3n
= 1 + 3n
To represent in Big-Oh notation,
T(N) is directly proportional to n,
Therefore,
The time complexity of recursive factorial is O(n).
As there is no extra space taken during the recursive calls,the space complexity is O(N).