Okay so I have this project I have to do, but I just don't understand it. The thing is, I have 2 algorithms. O(n^2) and O(n*log2n).
Anyway, I find out in the project info that if n<100, then O(n^2) is more efficient, but if n>=100, then O(n*log2n) is more efficient. I'm suppose to demonstrate with an example using numbers and words or drawing a photo. But the thing is, I don't understand this and I don't know how to demonstrate this.
Anyone here that can help me understand how this works?
Good question. Actually, I always show these 3 pictures:
n = [0; 10]
n = [0; 100]
n = [0; 1000]
So, O(N*log(N)) is far better than O(N^2). It is much closer to O(N) than to O(N^2).
But your O(N^2) algorithm is faster for N < 100 in real life. There are a lot of reasons why it can be faster. Maybe due to better memory allocation or other "non-algorithmic" effects. Maybe O(N*log(N)) algorithm requires some data preparation phase or O(N^2) iterations are shorter. Anyway, Big-O notation is only appropriate in case of large enough Ns.
If you want to demonstrate why one algorithm is faster for small Ns, you can measure execution time of 1 iteration and constant overhead for both algorithms, then use them to correct theoretical plot:
Example
Or just measure execution time of both algorithms for different Ns and plot empirical data.
Just ask wolframalpha if you have doubts.
In this case, it says
n log(n)
lim --------- = 0
n^2
Or you can also calculate the limit yourself:
n log(n) log(n) (Hôpital) 1/n 1
lim --------- = lim -------- = lim ------- = lim --- = 0
n^2 n 1 n
That means n^2 grows faster, so n log(n) is smaller (better), when n is high enough.
Big-O notation is a notation of asymptotic complexity. This means it calculates the complexity when N is arbitrarily large.
For small Ns, a lot of other factors come in. It's possible that an algorithm has O(n^2) loop iterations, but each iteration is very short, while another algorithm has O(n) iterations with very long iterations. With large Ns, the linear algorithm will be faster. With small Ns, the quadratic algorithm will be faster.
So, for small Ns, just measure the two and see which one is faster. No need to go into asymptotic complexity.
Incidentally, don't write the basis of the log. Big-O notation ignores constants - O(17 * N) is the same as O(N). Since log2N is just ln N / ln 2, the basis of the logarithm is just another constant and is ignored.
Let's compare them,
On one hand we have:
n^2 = n * n
On the other hand we have:
nlogn = n * log(n)
Putting them side to side:
n * n versus n * log(n)
Let's divide by n which is a common term, to get:
n versus log(n)
Let's compare values:
n = 10 log(n) ~ 2.3
n = 100 log(n) ~ 4.6
n = 1,000 log(n) ~ 6.9
n = 10,000 log(n) ~ 9.21
n = 100,000 log(n) ~ 11.5
n = 1,000,000 log(n) ~ 13.8
So we have:
n >> log(n) for n > 1
n^2 >> n log(n) for n > 1
Anyway, I find out in the project info that if n<100, then O(n^2) is
more efficient, but if n>=100, then O(n*log2n) is more efficient.
Let us start by clarifying what is Big O notation in the current context. From (source) one can read:
Big O notation is a mathematical notation that describes the limiting
behavior of a function when the argument tends towards a particular
value or infinity. (..) In computer science, big O notation is used to classify algorithms
according to how their run time or space requirements grow as the
input size grows.
Big O notation does not represent a function but rather a set of functions with a certain asymptotic upper-bound; as one can read from source:
Big O notation characterizes functions according to their growth
rates: different functions with the same growth rate may be
represented using the same O notation.
Informally, in computer-science time-complexity and space-complexity theories, one can think of the Big O notation as a categorization of algorithms with a certain worst-case scenario concerning time and space, respectively. For instance, O(n):
An algorithm is said to take linear time/space, or O(n) time/space, if its time/space complexity is O(n). Informally, this means that the running time/space increases at most linearly with the size of the input (source).
and O(n log n) as:
An algorithm is said to run in quasilinear time/space if T(n) = O(n log^k n) for some positive constant k; linearithmic time/space is the case k = 1 (source).
Mathematically speaking the statement
Which is better: O(n log n) or O(n^2)
is not accurate, since as mentioned before Big O notation represents a set of functions. Hence, more accurate would have been "does O(n log n) contains O(n^2)". Nonetheless, typically such relaxed phrasing is normally used to quantify (for the worst-case scenario) how a set of algorithms behaves compared with another set of algorithms regarding the increase of their input sizes. To compare two classes of algorithms (e.g., O(n log n) and O(n^2)) instead of
Anyway, I find out in the project info that if n<100, then O(n^2) is
more efficient, but if n>=100, then O(n*log2n) is more efficient.
you should analyze how both classes of algorithms behaves with the increase of their input size (i.e., n) for the worse-case scenario; analyzing n when it tends to the infinity
As #cem rightly point it out, in the image "big-O denote one of the asymptotically least upper-bounds of the plotted functions, and does not refer to the sets O(f(n))"
As you can see in the image after a certain input, O(n log n) (green line) grows slower than O(n^2) (orange line). That is why (for the worst-case) O(n log n) is more desirable than O(n^2) because one can increase the input size, and the growth rate will increase slower with the former than with the latter.
First, it is not quite correct to compare asymptotic complexity mixed with N constraint. I.E., I can state:
O(n^2) is slower than O(n * log(n)), because the definition of Big O notation will include n is growing infinitely.
For particular N it is possible to say which algorithm is faster by simply comparing N^2 * ALGORITHM_CONSTANT and N * log(N) * ALGORITHM_CONSTANT, where ALGORITHM_CONSTANT depends on the algorithm. For example, if we traverse array twice to do our job, asymptotic complexity will be O(N) and ALGORITHM_CONSTANT will be 2.
Also I'd like to mention that O(N * log2N) which I assume logariphm on basis 2 (log2N) is actually the same as O(N * log(N)) because of logariphm properties.
We have two way to compare two Algo
->first way is very simple compare and apply limit
T1(n)-Algo1
T2(n)=Alog2
lim (n->infinite) T1(n)/T2(n)=m
(i)if m=0 Algo1 is faster than Algo2
(ii)m=k Both are same
(iii)m=infinite Algo2 is faster
*Second way pretty simple as compare to 1st there you just take a log of both but do not neglet multi constant
Algo 1=log n
Algo 2=sqr(n)
keep log n =x
Any poly>its log
O(sqr(n))>o(logn)
I am a mathematician so i will try to explain why n^2 is faster than nlogn for small values of n , with a simple limit , while n-->0 :
lim n^2 / nlogn = lim n / logn = 0 / -inf = 0
so , for small values of n ( in this case "small value" is n existing in [1,99] ) , the nlogn is faster than n^2 , 'cause as we see limit = 0 .
But why n-->0? Because n in an algorithm can take "big" values , so when n<100 , it is considered like a very small value so we can take the limit n-->0.
Related
I read that O(n log n) is greater than O(n), I need to know why is it so?
For instance taking n as 1, and solving O(n log n) will be O(1 log 1) = O(0). On the same hand O(n) will be O(1)?
Which actually contradicts O(n log n) > O(n)
Let us start by clarifying what is Big O notation in the current context. From (source) one can read:
Big O notation is a mathematical notation that describes the limiting
behavior of a function when the argument tends towards a particular
value or infinity. (..) In computer science, big O notation is used to classify algorithms
according to how their run time or space requirements grow as the
input size grows.
The following statement is not accurate:
For instance taking n as 1, solving O(n log n) will be O(1 log 1) =
O(0). On the same hand O(n) will be O(1)?
One cannot simply perform "O(1 log 1)" since the Big O notation does not represent a function but rather a set of functions with a certain asymptotic upper-bound; as one can read from source:
Big O notation characterizes functions according to their growth
rates: different functions with the same growth rate may be
represented using the same O notation.
Informally, in computer-science time-complexity and space-complexity theories, one can think of the Big O notation as a categorization of algorithms with a certain worst-case scenario concerning time and space, respectively. For instance, O(n):
An algorithm is said to take linear time/space, or O(n) time/space, if its time/space complexity is O(n). Informally, this means that the running time/space increases at most linearly with the size of the input (source).
and O(n log n) as:
An algorithm is said to run in quasilinear time/space if T(n) = O(n log^k n) for some positive constant k; linearithmic time/space is the case k = 1 (source).
Mathematically speaking the statement
I read that O(n log n) is greater than O(n) (..)
is not accurate, since as mentioned before Big O notation represents a set of functions. Hence, more accurate will be O(n log n) contains O(n). Nonetheless, typically such relaxed phrasing is normally used to quantify (for the worst-case scenario) how a set of algorithms behaves compared with another set of algorithms regarding the increase of their input sizes. To compare two classes of algorithms (e.g., O(n log n) and O(n)) instead of
For instance taking n as 1, solving O(n log n) will be O(1 log 1) =
O(0). On the same hand O(n) will be O(1)?
Which actually contradicts O(n log n) > O(n)
you should analyze how both classes of algorithms behaves with the increase of their input size (i.e., n) for the worse-case scenario; analyzing n when it tends to the infinity
As #cem rightly point it out, in the image "big-O denote one of the asymptotically least upper-bounds of the plotted functions, and does not refer to the sets O(f(n))"
As you can see in the image after a certain input, O(n log n) (green line) grows faster than O(n) (yellow line). That is why (for the worst-case) O(n) is more desirable than O(n log n) because one can increase the input size, and the growth rate will increase slower with the former than with the latter.
I'm going to give the you the real answer, even though it seems to be more than one step away from the way you're currently thinking about it...
O(n) and O(n log n) are not numbers, or even functions, and it doesn't quite make sense to say that one is greater than the other. It's sloppy language, but there are actually two accurate statements that might be meant by saying that "O(n log n) is greater than O(n)".
Firstly, O(f(n)), for any function f(n) of n, is the infinite set of all functions that asymptotically grow no faster than f(n). A formal definition would be:
A function g(n) is in O(f(n)) if and only if there are constants n0 and C such that g(n) <= Cf(n) for all n > n0.
So O(n) is a set of functions and O(n log n) is a set of functions, and O(n log n) is a superset of O(n). Being a superset is kind of like being "greater", so if one were to say that "O(n log n) is greater than O(n)", they might be referring to the superset relationship between them.
Secondly, the definition of O(f(n)) makes f(n) an upper bound on the asymptotic growth of functions in the set. And the upper bound is greater for O(n log n) than it is for O(n). In more concrete terms, there a constant n0 such that n log n > n, for all n > n0. The bounding function itself is asymptotically greater, and this is another thing that one might mean when saying "O(n log n) is greater than O(n)".
Finally, both of these things are mathematically equivalent. If g(n) is asymptotically greater than f(n), it follows mathematically that O(g(n)) is a superset of O(f(n)), and if O(g(n)) is a proper superset of O(f(n)), it follows mathematically that g(n) is asymptotically greater than f(n).
Therefore, even though the statement "O(n log n) is greater than O(n)" does not strictly make any sense, it has a clear and unambiguous meaning if you're willing to read it charitably.
The big O notation only has an asymptotic meaning, that is it makes sense only when n goes to infinity.
For example, a time complexity of O(100000) just means your code runs in constant time, which is asymptotically faster (smaller) than O(log n).
I am currently learning about big O notation but there is a concept that's confusing me. If for 8N^2 + 4N + 3 the complexity class would be N^2 because this is the fastest growing term. And for 5N the complexity class is N.
Then is it correct to say that of NLogN the complexity class is N since N grows faster than LogN?
The problem I'm trying to solve is that if configuration A consists of a fast algorithm that takes 5NLogN operations to sort a list on a computer that runs 10^6 operations per seconds and configuration B consists of a slow algorithm that takes N**2 operations to sort a list and is run on a computer that runs 10^9 operations per second. for smaller arrays
configuration 1 is faster, but for larger arrays configuration 2 is better. For what size of array does this transition occur?
What I thought was if I equated expressions for the time it took to solve the problem then I could get an N for the transition point however that yielded the equation N^2/10^9 = 5NLogN/10^6 which simplifies to N/5000 = LogN which is not solvable.
Thank you
In mathematics, the definition of f = O(g) for two real-valued functions defined on the reals, is that f(n)/g(n) is bounded when n approaches infinity. In other words, there exists a constant A, such that for all n, f(n)/g(n) < A.
In your first example, (8n^2 + 4n + 3)/n^2 = 8 + 4/n + 3/n^2 which is bounded when n approaches infinity (by 15, for example), so 8n^2 + 4n + 3 is O(n^2). On the other hand, nlog(n)/n = log(n) which approaches infinity when n approaches infinity, so nlog(n) is not O(n). It is however O(n^2), because nlog(n)/n^2 = log(n)/n which is bounded (it approches zero near infinity).
As to your actual problem, remember that if you can't solve an equation symbolically you can always resolve it numerically. The existence of solutions is clear.
Let's suppose that the base of your logarithm is b, so we are to compare
5N * log(b, N)
with
N^2
5N * log(b, N) = log(b, N^(5N))
N^2 = N^2 * log(b, b) = log(b, b^(N^2))
So we compare
N ^ (5N) with b^(N^2)
Let's compare them and analyze the relative value of (N^5N) / (b^(N^2)) compared to 1. You will observe that after a sertain limit it is smaller than 1.
Q: is it correct to say that of NLogN the complexity class is N?
A: No, here is why we can ignore smaller terms:
Consider N^2 + 1000000 N
For small values of N, the second term is the only one which matters, but as N grows, that does not matter. Consider the ratio 1000000N / N^2, which shows the relative size of the two terms. Reduce to 10000000/N, which approaches zero as N approaches infinity. Therefore the second term has less and less importance as N grows, literally approaching zero.
It is not just "smaller," it is irrelevant for sufficiently large N.
That is not true for multiplicands. n log n is always significantly bigger than n, by a margin that continues to increase.
Then is it correct to say that of NLogN the complexity class is N
since N grows faster than LogN?
Nop, because N and log(N) are multiplied and log(N) isn't constant.
N/5000 = LogN
Roughly 55.000
Then is it correct to say that of NLogN the complexity class is N
since N grows faster than LogN?
No, when you omit you should omit a TERM. When you have NLgN it is, as a whole, called a term. As of what you're suggesting then: NNN = (N^2)*N. And since N^2 has bigger growth rate we omit N. Which is completely WRONG. The order is N^3 not N^2. And NLgN works in the same manner. You only omit when the term is added/subtracted.
For example, NLgN + N = NLgN because it has faster growth than N.
The problem I'm trying to solve is that if configuration A consists of
a fast algorithm that takes 5NLogN operations to sort a list on a
computer that runs 10^6 operations per seconds and configuration B
consists of a slow algorithm that takes N**2 operations to sort a list
and is run on a computer that runs 10^9 operations per second. for
smaller arrays configuration 1 is faster, but for larger arrays
configuration 2 is better. For what size of array does this transition
occur?
This CANNOT be true. It is the absolute OPPOSITE. For small N values the faster computer with N^2 is better. For very large N the slower computer with NLgN is better.
Where is the point? Well, the second computer is 1000 times faster than the first one. So they will be equal in speed when N^2 = 1000NLgN which solves to N~=14,500. So for N<14,500 then N^2 will go faster (since the computer is 1000 times faster) but for N>14,500 the slower computer will be much faster. Now imagine N=1,000,000. The faster computer will need 50 times more than what the slower computer needs because N^2 = 50,000 NLgN and it is 1000 times faster.
Note: the calculations were made using the Big O where constant factors are omitted. And the logarithm used is of the base 2. In algorithms complexity analysis we usually use LgN not LogN where LgN is log N to the base 2 and LogN is log N to the base 10.
However, referring to CLRS (good book, I recommend reading it) the Big O defines as:
Take a look at this graph for better understanding:
It is all about N > No. So all the rules of the Big O notation are valid FOR BIG VALUES OF N. For small N it is NOT necessarily correct. I mean, for N=5 it is not necessary that the Big O will give a close approximation on the running time.
I hope this gives a good answer for the question.
Reference: Chapter3, Section1, [CLRS] Introduction To Algorithms, 3rd Edition.
The following question was on a recent assignment in University. I would have thought the answer would be n^2+T(n-1) as I thought the n^2 would make it's asymptotic time complexity O(n^2). Where as with T(n/2)+1 its asymptotic time complexity would be O(log2(n)).
The answers were returned and it turns out the correct answer is T(n/2)+1 however I can't get my head around why this is the case.
Could someone possibly explain to me why that's the worst case time complexity of this algorithm? It's possible my understanding of time complexity is just wrong.
The asymptotic time complexity is taking n large. In the case of your example, since the question specifies that k is fixed, the only complexity relevant is the last one. See the Wikipedia formal definition, specifically:
As n grows to infinity, the recursion that dominates T(n) = T(n / 2) + 1. You can prove this as well using the formal definition, basically picking x_0 = 10 * k and showing that a finite M can be found using the first two cases. It should be clear that both log(n) and n^2 satisfy the definition, so the tighter bound is the asymptotic complexity.
What does O (f (n)) mean? It means the time is at most c * f (n), for some unknown and possibly large c.
kevmo claimed a complexity of O (log2 n). Well, you can check all the values n ≤ 10k, and let the largest value of T (n) be X. X might be quite large (about 167 k^3 in this case, I think, but it doesn't actually matter). For larger n, the time needed is at most X + log2 (n). Choose c = X, and this is always less than c * log2 (n).
Of course people usually assume that a O (log n) algorithm would be quick, and this one most certainly isn't if say k = 10,000. So you learned as well that O notation must be handled with care.
Talking about Big O notations, if one algorithm time complexity is O(N) and other's is O(2N), which one is faster?
The definition of big O is:
O(f(n)) = { g | there exist N and c > 0 such that g(n) < c * f(n) for all n > N }
In English, O(f(n)) is the set of all functions that have an eventual growth rate less than or equal to that of f.
So O(n) = O(2n). Neither is "faster" than the other in terms of asymptotic complexity. They represent the same growth rates - namely, the "linear" growth rate.
Proof:
O(n) is a subset of O(2n): Let g be a function in O(n). Then there are N and c > 0 such that g(n) < c * n for all n > N. So g(n) < (c / 2) * 2n for all n > N. Thus g is in O(2n).
O(2n) is a subset of O(n): Let g be a function in O(2n). Then there are N and c > 0 such that g(n) < c * 2n for all n > N. So g(n) < 2c * n for all n > N. Thus g is in O(n).
Typically, when people refer to an asymptotic complexity ("big O"), they refer to the canonical forms. For example:
logarithmic: O(log n)
linear: O(n)
linearithmic: O(n log n)
quadratic: O(n2)
exponential: O(cn) for some fixed c > 1
(Here's a fuller list: Table of common time complexities)
So usually you would write O(n), not O(2n); O(n log n), not O(3 n log n + 15 n + 5 log n).
Timothy Shield's answer is absolutely correct, that O(n) and O(2n) refer to the same set of functions, and so one is not "faster" than the other. It's important to note, though, that faster isn't a great term to apply here.
Wikipedia's article on "Big O notation" uses the term "slower-growing" where you might have used "faster", which is better practice. These algorithms are defined by how they grow as n increases.
One could easily imagine a O(n^2) function that is faster than O(n) in practice, particularly when n is small or if the O(n) function requires a complex transformation. The notation indicates that for twice as much input, one can expect the O(n^2) function to take roughly 4 times as long as it had before, where the O(n) function would take roughly twice as long as it had before.
It depends on the constants hidden by the asymptotic notation. For example, an algorithm that takes 3n + 5 steps is in the class O(n). So is an algorithm that takes 2 + n/1000 steps. But 2n is less than 3n + 5 and more than 2 + n/1000...
It's a bit like asking if 5 is less than some unspecified number between 1 and 10. It depends on the unspecified number. Just knowing that an algorithm runs in O(n) steps is not enough information to decide if an algorithm that takes 2n steps will complete faster or not.
Actually, it's even worse than that: you're asking if some unspecified number between 1 and 10 is larger than some other unspecified number between 1 and 10. The sets you pick from being the same doesn't mean the numbers you happen to pick will be equal! O(n) and O(2n) are sets of algorithms, and because the definition of Big-O cancels out multiplicative factors they are the same set. Individual members of the sets may be faster or slower than other members, but the sets are the same.
Theoretically O(N) and O(2N) are the same.
But practically, O(N) will definitely have a shorter running time, but not significant. When N is large enough, the running time of both will be identical.
O(N) and O(2N) will show significant difference in growth for small numbers of N, But as N value increases O(N) will dominate the growth and coefficient 2 becomes insignificant. So we can say algorithm complexity as O(N).
Example:
Let's take this function
T(n) = 3n^2 + 8n + 2089
For n= 1 or 2, the constant 2089 seems to be the dominant part of function but for larger values of n, we can ignore the constants and 8n and can just concentrate on 3n^2 as it will contribute more to the growth, If the n value still increases the coefficient 3 also seems insignificant and we can say complexity is O(n^2).
For detailed explanation refer here
O(n) is faster however you need to understand that when we talk about Big O, we are measuring the complexity of a function/algorithm, not its speed. And we measure this complexity asymptotically. In lay man terms, when we talk about asymptotic analysis, we take immensely huge values for n. So if you plot the graph for O(n) and O(2n), the values will stay in some particular range from each other for any value of n. They are much closer compared to the other canonical forms like O(nlogn) or O(1), so by convention we approximate the complexity to the canonical form O(n).
I have read quite a bit on big-O notation and I have a basic understanding. This is a specific question that I hope will help me understand it better.
If I have and array of 100 integers (no duplicates, and randomly generated) and I use heapsort to sort it, I know that big-O notation for heapsort is n lg n. For n = 100, this works out to 100 × 6.64, which is roughly 664.
While I know this is the upper bound on the number of comparisons and my count can be less than 664, if I am trying to figure out the number of comparisons for a heap sorted array of 100 random numbers, it should always be less than or equal to 664?
I am trying to add counters to my heapsort to get the big-O comparison time and coming up with crazy numbers. I will continue to work it out, but wanted to just verify that I was thinking of the upper bound properly.
Thanks!
Big-O notation does not give you an exact upper bound on a function's runtime - instead, it tells you asymptotically how the function's runtime grows. If a function has runtime O(n log n), it means that the function grows at roughly the same rate as the function f(n) = n log n. That means, for example, that the actual runtime could be 23 n log n + 17 n, or it could be 0.05 n log n. Consequently, you can't use the fact that heapsort is O(n log n) to count the number of comparisons made. You'd need a more precise analysis.
It just so happens that you can get a very precise analysis of heapsort, but it requires you to do a more meticulous analysis of the algorithm. You can show, for example, that the number of comparisons required to call make-heap is at most 3n, and that the number of comparisons made during the repeated calls to extract-min is at most 2n log (n + 1) (the binary heap has log (n + 1) layers, and during each of the n extract-max's, at each layer at most two comparisons are made). This gives an overall number of comparisons upper-bounded by 2n log (n + 1) + 3n.
The famous Ω(n log n) sorting barrier can be used to get a matching lower bound. Any comparison-based sorting algorithm, of which heapsort is one, must make at least log n! = n log n - n + O(log n) (this is Stirling's approximation) comparisons on average, and so heapsort is required to make at least n log n - n comparisons in the worst-case. (Note that this is actually n log n, not some constant multiple of n log n. You can read over the proof of the Ω(n log n) barrier for why this is.)
Hope this helps!
Let's say that you know that your algorithm requires O( n log_2 n ) comparisons when sorting n elements.
This tells you the following, and only the following: there exists a constant number C such that, as n approaches infinity, the algorithm never requires more than C * n * log_2 n comparisons.
It does not tell you anything about the specific number of comparisons that might be required for any value of n -- it tells you about how the number of comparisons required grows in the limit as the number of elements grows.
You can not use the Big-O complexity of your sorting algorithm to prove anything about the behaviour of a particular finite n, such as 100 elements. Sorting 100 elements might require 64 comparisons, or 664, or 664 million. The latter is clearly not reasonable, but Big-O simply provides no information here.