I have a simple algorithm that prints the two dimensional matrix (m*n, m and n are different numbers):
for(i=0;i<m;i++)
for(j=0;j<n;j++)
Console.WriteLine("{0}",A[i,j]);
I read that the big O notation for this algorithm is O(n^2);
Could somebody explain me what is the "n^2" in that statement? If this is number of elementary operations, then it should be m*n, not n^2?
In reality it should me m*n. We can assume it to be the number of elementary operations in this case, but the actual definition is its "the upper bound of the number of elementary operations."
Yeah, time complexity of for the specified block of code is O(n * m).
In simple words, that means your algo does <= k * n * m operations, k is some small constant factor.
With for-loops, the complexity is measured as O(N) * the block inside the for-loop. The first for-loop contains a second for-loop so the complexity would be 0(N) * 0(N) = O(N^2). The inner for-loop contains a simple output statement, which has a complexity of 0(1) The N corresponds to the number of inputs so the time taken to execute the code is proportional to the number of items squared.
first for loop runs for m-1 times and second for loop runs for n-1 times..
m-1 times = 1+2+3....m-1 times (same for second forloop)
we know that sum of natural numbers is x(x-1)/2 = x^2/2 - x/2
there are 2 loops so adding them gives you 2(x^2/2-x/2)
in Bing O notation we consider only the most dominant value and ignore coefficients, so we get x^2
so O(N) = x^2
Related
I have two pseudo-code algorithms:
RandomAlgorithm(modVec[0 to n − 1])
b = 0;
for i = 1 to n do
b = 2.b + modVec[n − i];
for i = 1 to b do
modVec[i mod n] = modVec[(i + 1) mod n];
return modVec;
Second:
AnotherRecursiveAlgo(multiplyVec[1 to n])
if n ≤ 2 do
return multiplyVec[1] × multiplyVec[1];
return
multiplyVec[1] × multiplyVec[n] +
AnotherRecursiveAlgo(multiplyVec[1 to n/3]) +
AnotherRecursiveAlgo(multiplyVec[2n/3 to n]);
I need to analyse the time complexity for these algorithms:
For the first algorithm i got the first loop is in O(n),the second loop has a best case and a worst case , best case is we have O(1) the loop runs once, the worst case is we have a big n on the first loop, but i don't know how to write this idea as a time complexity cause i usually get b=sum(from 1 to n-1) of 2^n-1 . modVec[n-1] and i get stuck here.
For the second loop i just don't get how to solve the time complexity of this one, we usually have it dependant on n , so we need the formula i think.
Thanks for the help.
The first problem is a little strange, all right.
If it helps, envision modVec as an array of 1's and 0's.
In this case, the first loop converts this array to a value.
This is O(n)
For instance, (1, 1, 0, 1, 1) will yield b = 27.
Your second loop runs b times. The dominating term for the value of b is 2^(n-1), a.k.a. O(2^n). The assignment you do inside the loop is O(1).
The second loop does depend on n. Your base case is a simple multiplication, O(1). The recursion step has three terms:
simple multiplication
recur on n/3 elements
recur on n/3 elements (from 2n/3 to the end is n/3 elements)
Just as your binary partitions result in log[2] complexities, this one will result in log[3]. The base doesn't matter; the coefficient (two recursive calls) doesn't' matter. 2*O(log3) is still O(log N).
Does that push you to a solution?
First Loop
To me this boils down to the O(First-For-Loop) + O(Second-For-Loop).
O(First-For-Loop) is simple = O(n).
O(Second-For-Loop) interestingly depends on n. Therefore, to me it's can be depicted as O(f(n)), where f(n) is some function of n. Not completely sure if I understand the f(n) based on the code presented.
The answer consequently becomes O(n) + O(f(n)). This could boil down to O(n) or O(f(n)) depending upon which one is larger and more dominant (since the lower order terms don't matter in the big-O notation.
Second Loop
In this case, I see that each call to the function invokes 3 additional calls...
The first call seems to be an O(1) call. So it won't matter.
The second and the third calls seems to recurses the function.
Therefore each function call is resulting in 2 additional recursions.
Consequently , the time complexity on this would be O(2^n).
Our prof and various materials say Summation(n) = (n) (n+1) /2 and hence is theta(n^2). But intuitively, we just need one loop to find the sum of first n terms! So, it has to be theta(n).I'm wondering what am I missing here?!
All of these answers are misunderstanding the problem just like the original question: The point is not to measure the runtime complexity of an algorithm for summing integers, it's talking about how to reason about the complexity of an algorithm which takes i steps during each pass for i in 1..n. Consider insertion sort: On each step i to insert one member of the original list the output list is i elements long, thus it takes i steps (on average) to perform the insert. What is the complexity of insertion sort? It's the sum of all of those steps, or the sum of i for i in 1..n. That sum is n(n+1)/2 which has an n^2 in it, thus insertion sort is O(n^2).
The running time of the this code is Θ(1) (assuming addition/subtraction and multiplaction are constant time operations):
result = n*(n + 1)/2 // This statement executes once
The running time of the following pseudocode, which is what you described, is indeed Θ(n):
result = 0
for i from 1 up to n:
result = result + i // This statement executes exactly n times
Here is another way to compute it which has a running time of Θ(n²):
result = 0
for i from 1 up to n:
for j from i up to n:
result = result + 1 // This statement executes exactly n*(n + 1)/2 times
All three of those code blocks compute the natural numbers' sum from 1 to n.
This Θ(n²) loop is probably the type you are being asked to analyse. Whenever you have a loop of the form:
for i from 1 up to n:
for j from i up to n:
// Some statements that run in constant time
You have a running time complexity of Θ(n²), because those statements execute exactly summation(n) times.
I think the problem is that you're incorrectly assuming that the summation formula has time complexity theta(n^2).
The formula has an n^2 in it, but it doesn't require a number of computations or amount of time proportional to n^2.
Summing everything up to n in a loop would be theta(n), as you say, because you would have to iterate through the loop n times.
However, calculating the result of the equation n(n+1)/2 would just be theta(1) as it's a single calculation that is performed once regardless of how big n is.
Summation(n) being n(n+1)/2 refers to the sum of numbers from 1 to n. Which is a mathematical formula and can be calculated without a loop which is O(1) time. If you iterate an array to sum all values that is an O(n) algorithm.
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
Pardon me if the question is "silly". I am new to algorithmic time complexity.
I understand that if I have n numbers and I want to sum them, it takes "n steps", which means the algorithm is O(n) or linear time. i.e. Number of steps taken increases linearly with number of input, n.
If I write a new algorithm that does this summing 5 times, one after another, I understand that it is O(5n) = O(n) time, still linear (according to wikipedia).
Question
If I have say 10 different O(n) time algorithms (sum, linear time sort etc). And I run them one after another on the n inputs.
Does this mean that overall this runs in O(10n) = O(n), linear time?
Yep, O(kn) for any constant k, = O(n)
If you start growing your problem and decide that your 10 linear ops are actually k linear ops based on, say k being the length of a user input array, it would then be incorrect to drop that information from the big-oh
It's best to work it through from the definition of big-O, then learn the rule of thumb once you've "proved" it correct.
If you have 10 O(n) algorithms, that means that there are 10 constants C1 to C10, such that for each algorithm Ai, the time taken to execute it is less than Ci * n for sufficiently large n.
Hence[*] the time taken to run all 10 algorithms for sufficiently large n is less than:
C1 * n + C2 * n + ... + C10 * n
= (C1 + C2 + ... + C10) * n
So the total is also O(n), with constant C1 + ... + C10.
Rule of thumb learned: the sum of a constant number of O(f(n)) functions is O(f(n)).
[*] proof of this left to the reader. Hint: there are 10 different values of "sufficient" to consider.
Yes, O(10n) = O(n). Also, O(C*n) = O(n), where C is a constant. In this case C is 10. It might seem as O(n^2) if C is equal to n, but this is not true. As C is a constant, it does not
change with n.
Also, note that in summation of complexities, the highest order or the most complex one is considered the overall complexity. In this case it is O(n) + O(n) ... + O(n) ten times. Thus, it is O(n).
I always thought the complexity of:
1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n is O(n), and summing two n by n matrices would be O(n^2).
But today I read from a textbook, "by the formula for the sum of the first n integers, this is n(n+1)/2" and then thus: (1/2)n^2 + (1/2)n, and thus O(n^2).
What am I missing here?
The big O notation can be used to determine the growth rate of any function.
In this case, it seems the book is not talking about the time complexity of computing the value, but about the value itself. And n(n+1)/2 is O(n^2).
You are confusing complexity of runtime and the size (complexity) of the result.
The running time of summing, one after the other, the first n consecutive numbers is indeed O(n).1
But the complexity of the result, that is the size of “sum from 1 to n” = n(n – 1) / 2 is O(n ^ 2).
1 But for arbitrarily large numbers this is simplistic since adding large numbers takes longer than adding small numbers. For a precise runtime analysis, you indeed have to consider the size of the result. However, this isn’t usually relevant in programming, nor even in purely theoretical computer science. In both domains, summing numbers is usually considered an O(1) operation unless explicitly required otherwise by the domain (i.e. when implementing an operation for a bignum library).
n(n+1)/2 is the quick way to sum a consecutive sequence of N integers (starting from 1). I think you're confusing an algorithm with big-oh notation!
If you thought of it as a function, then the big-oh complexity of this function is O(1):
public int sum_of_first_n_integers(int n) {
return (n * (n+1))/2;
}
The naive implementation would have big-oh complexity of O(n).
public int sum_of_first_n_integers(int n) {
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
sum += n;
}
return sum;
}
Even just looking at each cell of a single n-by-n matrix is O(n^2), since the matrix has n^2 cells.
There really isn't a complexity of a problem, but rather a complexity of an algorithm.
In your case, if you choose to iterate through all the numbers, the the complexity is, indeed, O(n).
But that's not the most efficient algorithm. A more efficient one is to apply the formula - n*(n+1)/2, which is constant, and thus the complexity is O(1).
So my guess is that this is actually a reference to Cracking the Coding Interview, which has this paragraph on a StringBuffer implementation:
On each concatenation, a new copy of the string is created, and the
two strings are copied over, character by character. The first
iteration requires us to copy x characters. The second iteration
requires copying 2x characters. The third iteration requires 3x, and
so on. The total time therefore is O(x + 2x + ... + nx). This reduces
to O(xn²). (Why isn't it O(xnⁿ)? Because 1 + 2 + ... n equals n(n+1)/2
or, O(n²).)
For whatever reason I found this a little confusing on my first read-through, too. The important bit to see is that n is multiplying n, or in other words that n² is happening, and that dominates. This is why ultimately O(xn²) is just O(n²) -- the x is sort of a red herring.
You have a formula that doesn't depend on the number of numbers being added, so it's a constant-time algorithm, or O(1).
If you add each number one at a time, then it's indeed O(n). The formula is a shortcut; it's a different, more efficient algorithm. The shortcut works when the numbers being added are all 1..n. If you have a non-contiguous sequence of numbers, then the shortcut formula doesn't work and you'll have to go back to the one-by-one algorithm.
None of this applies to the matrix of numbers, though. To add two matrices, it's still O(n^2) because you're adding n^2 distinct pairs of numbers to get a matrix of n^2 results.
There's a difference between summing N arbitrary integers and summing N that are all in a row. For 1+2+3+4+...+N, you can take advantage of the fact that they can be divided into pairs with a common sum, e.g. 1+N = 2+(N-1) = 3+(N-2) = ... = N + 1. So that's N+1, N/2 times. (If there's an odd number, one of them will be unpaired, but with a little effort you can see that the same formula holds in that case.)
That is not O(N^2), though. It's just a formula that uses N^2, actually O(1). O(N^2) would mean (roughly) that the number of steps to calculate it grows like N^2, for large N. In this case, the number of steps is the same regardless of N.
Adding the first n numbers:
Consider the algorithm:
Series_Add(n)
return n*(n+1)/2
this algorithm indeed runs in O(|n|^2), where |n| is the length (the bits) of n and not the magnitude, simply because multiplication of 2 numbers, one of k bits and the other of l bits runs in O(k*l) time.
Careful
Considering this algorithm:
Series_Add_pseudo(n):
sum=0
for i= 1 to n:
sum += i
return sum
which is the naive approach, you can assume that this algorithm runs in linear time or generally in polynomial time. This is not the case.
The input representation(length) of n is O(logn) bits (any n-ary coding except unary), and the algorithm (although it is running linearly in the magnitude) it runs exponentially (2^logn) in the length of the input.
This is actually the pseudo-polynomial algorithm case. It appears to be polynomial but it is not.
You could even try it in python (or any programming language), for a medium length number like 200 bits.
Applying the first algorithm the result comes in a split second, and applying the second, you have to wait a century...
1+2+3+...+n is always less than n+n+n...+n n times. you can rewrite this n+n+..+n as n*n.
f(n) = O(g(n)) if there exists a positive integer n0 and a positive
constant c, such that f(n) ≤ c * g(n) ∀ n ≥ n0
since Big-Oh represents the upper bound of the function, where the function f(n) is the sum of natural numbers up to n.
now, talking about time complexity, for small numbers, the addition should be of a constant amount of work. but the size of n could be humongous; you can't deny that probability.
adding integers can take linear amount of time when n is really large.. So you can say that addition is O(n) operation and you're adding n items. so that alone would make it O(n^2). of course, it will not always take n^2 time, but it's the worst-case when n is really large. (upper bound, remember?)
Now, let's say you directly try to achieve it using n(n+1)/2. Just one multiplication and one division, this should be a constant operation, no?
No.
using a natural size metric of number of digits, the time complexity of multiplying two n-digit numbers using long multiplication is Θ(n^2). When implemented in software, long multiplication algorithms must deal with overflow during additions, which can be expensive. Wikipedia
That again leaves us to O(n^2).
It's equivalent to BigO(n^2), because it is equivalent to (n^2 + n) / 2 and in BigO you ignore constants, so even though the squared n is divided by 2, you still have exponential growth at the rate of square.
Think about O(n) and O(n/2) ? We similarly don't distinguish the two, O(n/2) is just O(n) for a smaller n, but the growth rate is still linear.
What that means is that as n increase, if you were to plot the number of operations on a graph, you would see a n^2 curve appear.
You can see that already:
when n = 2 you get 3
when n = 3 you get 6
when n = 4 you get 10
when n = 5 you get 15
when n = 6 you get 21
And if you plot it like I did here:
You see that the curve is similar to that of n^2, you will have a smaller number at each y, but the curve is similar to it. Thus we say that the magnitude is the same, because it will grow in time complexity similarly to n^2 as n grows bigger.
answer of sum of series of n natural can be found using two ways. first way is by adding all the numbers in loop. in this case algorithm is linear and code will be like this
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
sum += n;
}
return sum;
it is analogous to 1+2+3+4+......+n. in this case complexity of algorithm is calculated as number of times addition operation is performed which is O(n).
second way of finding answer of sum of series of n natural number is direst formula n*(n+1)/2. this formula use multiplication instead of repetitive addition. multiplication operation has not linear time complexity. there are various algorithm available for multiplication which has time complexity ranging from O(N^1.45) to O (N^2). therefore in case of multiplication time complexity depends on the processor's architecture. but for the analysis purpose time complexity of multiplication is considered as O(N^2). therefore when one use second way to find the sum then time complexity will be O(N^2).
here multiplication operation is not same as the addition operation. if anybody has knowledge of computer organisation subject then he can easily understand the internal working of multiplication and addition operation. multiplication circuit is more complex than the adder circuit and require much higher time than the adder circuit to compute the result. so time complexity of sum of series can't be constant.