Question
Hi I am trying to understand what order of complexity in terms of Big O notation is. I have read many articles and am yet to find anything explaining exactly 'order of complexity', even on the useful descriptions of Big O on here.
What I already understand about big O
The part which I already understand. about Big O notation is that we are measuring the time and space complexity of an algorithm in terms of the growth of input size n. I also understand that certain sorting methods have best, worst and average scenarios for Big O such as O(n) ,O(n^2) etc and the n is input size (number of elements to be sorted).
Any simple definitions or examples would be greatly appreciated thanks.
Big-O analysis is a form of runtime analysis that measures the efficiency of an algorithm in terms of the time it takes for the algorithm to run as a function of the input size. It’s not a formal bench- mark, just a simple way to classify algorithms by relative efficiency when dealing with very large input sizes.
Update:
The fastest-possible running time for any runtime analysis is O(1), commonly referred to as constant running time.An algorithm with constant running time always takes the same amount of time
to execute, regardless of the input size.This is the ideal run time for an algorithm, but it’s rarely achievable.
The performance of most algorithms depends on n, the size of the input.The algorithms can be classified as follows from best-to-worse performance:
O(log n) — An algorithm is said to be logarithmic if its running time increases logarithmically in proportion to the input size.
O(n) — A linear algorithm’s running time increases in direct proportion to the input size.
O(n log n) — A superlinear algorithm is midway between a linear algorithm and a polynomial algorithm.
O(n^c) — A polynomial algorithm grows quickly based on the size of the input.
O(c^n) — An exponential algorithm grows even faster than a polynomial algorithm.
O(n!) — A factorial algorithm grows the fastest and becomes quickly unusable for even small values of n.
The run times of different orders of algorithms separate rapidly as n gets larger.Consider the run time for each of these algorithm classes with
n = 10:
log 10 = 1
10 = 10
10 log 10 = 10
10^2 = 100
2^10= 1,024
10! = 3,628,800
Now double it to n = 20:
log 20 = 1.30
20 = 20
20 log 20= 26.02
20^2 = 400
2^20 = 1,048,576
20! = 2.43×1018
Finding an algorithm that works in superlinear time or better can make a huge difference in how well an application performs.
Say, f(n) in O(g(n)) if and only if there exists a C and n0 such that f(n) < C*g(n) for all n greater than n0.
Now that's a rather mathematical approach. So I'll give some examples. The simplest case is O(1). This means "constant". So no matter how large the input (n) of a program, it will take the same time to finish. An example of a constant program is one that takes a list of integers, and returns the first one. No matter how long the list is, you can just take the first and return it right away.
The next is linear, O(n). This means that if the input size of your program doubles, so will your execution time. An example of a linear program is the sum of a list of integers. You'll have to look at each integer once. So if the input is an list of size n, you'll have to look at n integers.
An intuitive definition could define the order of your program as the relation between the input size and the execution time.
Others have explained big O notation well here. I would like to point out that sometimes too much emphasis is given to big O notation.
Consider matrix multplication the naïve algorithm has O(n^3). Using the Strassen algoirthm it can be done as O(n^2.807). Now there are even algorithms that get O(n^2.3727).
One might be tempted to choose the algorithm with the lowest big O but it turns for all pratical purposes that the naïvely O(n^3) method wins out. This is because the constant for the dominating term is much larger for the other methods.
Therefore just looking at the dominating term in the complexity can be misleading. Sometimes one has to consider all terms.
Big O is about finding an upper limit for the growth of some function. See the formal definition on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation
So if you've got an algorithm that sorts an array of size n and it requires only a constant amount of extra space and it takes (for example) 2 n² + n steps to complete, then you would say it's space complexity is O(n) or O(1) (depending on wether you count the size of the input array or not) and it's time complexity is O(n²).
Knowing only those O numbers, you could roughly determine how much more space and time is needed to go from n to n + 100 or 2 n or whatever you are interested in. That is how well an algorithm "scales".
Update
Big O and complexity are really just two terms for the same thing. You can say "linear complexity" instead of O(n), quadratic complexity instead of O(n²), etc...
I see that you are commenting on several answers wanting to know the specific term of order as it relates to Big-O.
Suppose f(n) = O(n^2), we say that the order is n^2.
Be careful here, there are some subtleties. You stated "we are measuring the time and space complexity of an algorithm in terms of the growth of input size n," and that's how people often treat it, but it's not actually correct. Rather, with O(g(n)) we are determining that g(n), scaled suitably, is an upper bound for the time and space complexity of an algorithm for all input of size n bigger than some particular n'. Similarly, with Omega(h(n)) we are determining that h(n), scaled suitably, is a lower bound for the time and space complexity of an algorithm for all input of size n bigger than some particular n'. Finally, if both the lower and upper bound are the same complexity g(n), the complexity is Theta(g(n)). In other words, Theta represents the degree of complexity of the algorithm while big-O and big-Omega bound it above and below.
Constant Growth: O(1)
Linear Growth: O(n)
Quadratic Growth: O(n^2)
Cubic Growth: O(n^3)
Logarithmic Growth: (log(n)) or O(n*log(n))
Big O use Mathematical Definition of complexity .
Order Of use in industrial Definition of complexity .
Related
In the analysis of the time complexity of algorithms, why do you take only the highest growing term?
My thoughts are that time complexity is generally not used as an accurate measurement of the performance of an algorithm but rather used to identify which group an algorithm belongs to.
Consider if you had separate loops but each have nested loops of two levels, both iterating through n items such that the total complexity of the algorithm is 2n^2
Why is it taken that this algorithm is complexity of O(n^2)?
rather than O(2n^2)
My other thoughts are, n^2 defines the shape of the computation vs input length graph or that we consider parallel computation when calculating the complexity such that O(2n^2) = O(n^2)
Its true that Ax^2 is just a scaling of x^2 the shape remains quadratic
My other question is consider the same two separate loops, now the first iterating through n items and the second v items such that the total complexity of the algorithm is n^2 + v^2 if using sequential computation. Will the complexity be O(n^2+v^2)?
Thank you
So first let me observe that two loops can be faster than one if the one does more than twice as much work in the loop body.
To fully answer your question, big-O describes a growth regime, but it doesn't describe what we're observing growth in. The usual assumption is something like processor cycles or machine instructions, you can also count floating-point operations only (common in scientific computing), memory reads (probe complexity), cache misses, you name it.
If you want to count machine operations, no one's stopping you. But if you don't use big-O notation, then you have to be specific about which machine, and which implementation. Don Knuth famously invented an assembly language for The Art of Computer Programming so that he could do exactly that.
That's a lot of work though, so algorithm researchers typically follow the example of Angluin--Valiant instead, who introduced the unit-cost RAM. Their hypothesis was something like this: for any pair of the computers of the day, you could write a program to simulate one on the other where each source instruction used a constant number of target instructions. Therefore, by using big-O to erase the leading constant, you could make a statement about a large class of machines.
It's still useful to distinguish between broad classes of algorithms. In an old but particularly memorable demonstration, Jon Bentley showed that a linear-time algorithm on a TRS-80 (low-end microcomputer) could beat out a cubic algorithm on a Cray 1 (the fastest supercomputer of its day).
To answer the other question: yes, O(n² + v²) is correct if we don't know whether n or v dominates.
You're using big-O notation to express time complexity which gives an asymptotic upper bound .
For a function f(n) we define O(g(n)) as the set of functions
O(g(n)) = { f(n): there exist positive constants c and n0
such that,
0 ≤ f(n) ≤ cg(n) for all n ≥ n0}
Now coming to question,
In the analysis of the time complexity of algorithms, why do you take only the highest growing term?
Consider an algorithm with, f(n) = an2 +bn +c
It's time complexity is given by O(n2) or f(n) = O(n2)
because there will always be constants c' and n0 such that c'g(n) ≥ f(n) i.e. c'n2 ≥ an2 +bn +c , for n ≥ n0
We consider only higher growing term an2 and neglect bn+c as in the long term an2 will be much bigger than bn +c (eg.for n=1020, n2 is 1020 times larger than n)
Why is it taken that this algorithm is complexity of O(n^2)? rather than O(2n^2)
When a constant is multiplied it scales the function by constant amount, so even though 2n2 > n2 we write time complexity as O(n2) as there exists some constants c', n0 such that c'n2 ≥ 2n2
Will the complexity be O(n^2+v^2)
Yes, the time complexity will be O(n2 + v2) but if one variable dominates it will be O(n2) or O(v2) depending upon which dominates.
My thoughts are that time complexity is generally not used as an accurate
measurement of the performance of an algorithm but rather used to identify
which group an algorithm belongs to.
Time complexity is used to estimate performance in terms of growth of a function. The exact performance of algorithm is hard to determine precisely due to which we rely on asymptotic bounds to get rough idea about performance for large inputs
You can take the case of Merge Sort (O(NlgN)) and Insertion Sort(O(N2)). Clearly merge sort is better than insertion sort in terms of performance as NlgN < N2 but when the input size is small (eg. N=10) Insertion sort outperforms merge sort mainly because the constant operations in Merge Sort increases it's execution time.
I am having trouble fully understanding this question:
Two O(n2) algorithms will always take the same amount of time for a given vale of n. True or false? Explain.
I think the answer is false, because from my understanding, I think that the asymptotic time complexity only measures the two algorithms running at O(n2) time, however one algorithm might take longer as perhaps it might have additional O(n) components to the algorithm. Like O(n2) vs (O(n2) + O(n)).
I am not sure if my logic is correct. Any help would be appreciated.
Yes, you are right. Big Oh notation depicts the upper bound of time complexity. There might some extra constant term c or smaller term of n like O(n) added to it which won't be considered for time complexity.
Moreover,
for i = 0 to n
for j = 0 to n
// some constant time operation
end
end
And
for i = 0 to n
for j = i to n
// some constant time operation
end
end
Both of these are O(n^2) asymptotically but won't take same time.
The concept of big Oh analysis is not to calculate the precise amount of time a program takes to execute, it's not about counting how many times a loop iterates. Rather it indicates the algorithm's growth rate with n.
The answer is correct but the explanation is lacking.
For one, the big O notation allows arbitrary constant factors. so both n2 and 100*n2 are in O(n2) but clearly the second is always larger.
Another reason is that the notation only gives an upper bound so even a runtime of n is in O(n2) so one of the algorithms may in fact be linear.
I am a little confused on the difference between T(N) and O(N) when dealing with time complexity. I have three algorithms with their respective T(N) equations and I have to find the worst case time complexity O(N) and I’m not sure how that differs from T(N).
An example would be:
T(n) = 150⋅N² + 3⋅N + 11⋅log₂(N)
Would the O() be just O(N²)
Also, should the algorithm with the lower order of complexity always be used? I have a feeling the answer is no but I'm not too sure as to why.
Would the O() be just O(N²)
Yes.
For large N, the N² term will dominate the runtime, so that the other terms don't matter anymore.
E.g., for N=10, in your example, 150⋅N² is already 15000, while 3⋅N = 30 and 11⋅log₂(N) = 36.5, so the non-N² terms make up only 0.44% of the total number of steps.
For N=100, 150⋅N² = 1500000, 3⋅N = 300, 11⋅log₂(N) = 73.1, so the non-N² terms make up only 0.025% of the total number of steps.
So for higher N, the relevance of lower order terms diminishes.
Also, should the algorithm with the lower order of complexity always be used?
No. Because Big-O notation describes only the asymptotic behavior as N gets large, and does not include any constant factor overhead, you may often be better off using a less optimal algorithm with a lower overhead.
In your example, if I have an alternate algorithm for the problem you are trying to solve that has runtime T'(N) = 10⋅N³, then for N=10 it will take only 10000 steps, while your example would require 150067 steps. Basically, for any N ≤ 15, the T'(N) algorithm would be faster, and for any N > 15, your T(N) algorithm would be faster. So if you know in advance that you are not going to see any N > 15, you are better off by choosing the theoretically less efficient algorithm T'(N).
Of course, in practice there are many other considerations as well, such as:
Availability of algorithms that you can reuse in libraries, on the web, etc.
If you implement it yourself: ease of implementation
Whether or not the algorithm scales to multiple cores or multiple machines easily
T(n) is the function representing the time taken for an input of size n. Big-oh notation is a classification of that. Like you said in your example, the big-oh of that example would be n^2.
Regarding your second question, big-oh notation indicates the algorithm you should use as the input size approaches infinity. Practically speaking, there are cases where you would never get an input large enough to compensate.
For example, if T1(n) = 999999999999*N and T2(n) = 2*N^2, eventually n is large enough for T2 to be greater than T1. However, for smaller sizes of n, T1 is greater. You can graph the functions, or even solve a system of equations to find out what size of n will make a difference.
Note: Also keep in mind that big-oh is a bound on the complexity, which means that you can have a loose bound which is still correct.
T(n) is just a function. O or big oh is a level of complexity.
T(n) can be f(n) or g(n) for that matter.
I hope that is clear.
Big Oh is a measure of the time or space complexity of an algorithm.
You dont consider the lower order for complexity because for very large values of n, the higher order complexity is >> lower order complexity.
Hi I would really appreciate some help with Big-O notation. I have an exam in it tomorrow and while I can define what f(x) is O(g(x)) is, I can't say I thoroughly understand it.
The following question ALWAYS comes up on the exam and I really need to try and figure it out, the first part seems easy (I think) Do you just pick a value for n, compute them all on a claculator and put them in order? This seems to easy though so I'm not sure. I'm finding it very hard to find examples online.
From lowest to highest, what is the
correct order of the complexities
O(n2), O(log2 n), O(1), O(2n), O(n!),
O(n log2 n)?
What is the
worst-case computational-complexity of
the Binary Search algorithm on an
ordered list of length n = 2k?
That guy should help you.
From lowest to highest, what is the
correct order of the complexities
O(n2), O(log2 n), O(1), O(2n), O(n!),
O(n log2 n)?
The order is same as if you compare their limit at infinity. like lim(a/b), if it is 1, then they are same, inf. or 0 means one of them is faster.
What is the worst-case
computational-complexity of the Binary
Search algorithm on an ordered list of
length n = 2k?
Find binary search best/worst Big-O.
Find linked list access by index best/worst Big-O.
Make conclusions.
Hey there. Big-O notation is tough to figure out if you don't really understand what the "n" means. You've already seen people talking about how O(n) == O(2n), so I'll try to explain exactly why that is.
When we describe an algorithm as having "order-n space complexity", we mean that the size of the storage space used by the algorithm gets larger with a linear relationship to the size of the problem that it's working on (referred to as n.) If we have an algorithm that, say, sorted an array, and in order to do that sort operation the largest thing we did in memory was to create an exact copy of that array, we'd say that had "order-n space complexity" because as the size of the array (call it n elements) got larger, the algorithm would take up more space in order to match the input of the array. Hence, the algorithm uses "O(n)" space in memory.
Why does O(2n) = O(n)? Because when we talk in terms of O(n), we're only concerned with the behavior of the algorithm as n gets as large as it could possibly be. If n was to become infinite, the O(2n) algorithm would take up two times infinity spaces of memory, and the O(n) algorithm would take up one times infinity spaces of memory. Since two times infinity is just infinity, both algorithms are considered to take up a similar-enough amount of room to be both called O(n) algorithms.
You're probably thinking to yourself "An algorithm that takes up twice as much space as another algorithm is still relatively inefficient. Why are they referred to using the same notation when one is much more efficient?" Because the gain in efficiency for arbitrarily large n when going from O(2n) to O(n) is absolutely dwarfed by the gain in efficiency for arbitrarily large n when going from O(n^2) to O(500n). When n is 10, n^2 is 10 times 10 or 100, and 500n is 500 times 10, or 5000. But we're interested in n as n becomes as large as possible. They cross over and become equal for an n of 500, but once more, we're not even interested in an n as small as 500. When n is 1000, n^2 is one MILLION while 500n is a "mere" half million. When n is one million, n^2 is one thousand billion - 1,000,000,000,000 - while 500n looks on in awe with the simplicity of it's five-hundred-million - 500,000,000 - points of complexity. And once more, we can keep making n larger, because when using O(n) logic, we're only concerned with the largest possible n.
(You may argue that when n reaches infinity, n^2 is infinity times infinity, while 500n is five hundred times infinity, and didn't you just say that anything times infinity is infinity? That doesn't actually work for infinity times infinity. I think. It just doesn't. Can a mathematician back me up on this?)
This gives us the weirdly counterintuitive result where O(Seventy-five hundred billion spillion kajillion n) is considered an improvement on O(n * log n). Due to the fact that we're working with arbitrarily large "n", all that matters is how many times and where n appears in the O(). The rules of thumb mentioned in Julia Hayward's post will help you out, but here's some additional information to give you a hand.
One, because n gets as big as possible, O(n^2+61n+1682) = O(n^2), because the n^2 contributes so much more than the 61n as n gets arbitrarily large that the 61n is simply ignored, and the 61n term already dominates the 1682 term. If you see addition inside a O(), only concern yourself with the n with the highest degree.
Two, O(log10n) = O(log(any number)n), because for any base b, log10(x) = log_b(*x*)/log_b(10). Hence, O(log10n) = O(log_b(x) * 1/(log_b(10)). That 1/log_b(10) figure is a constant, which we've already shown drop out of O(n) notation.
Very loosely, you could imagine picking extremely large values of n, and calculating them. Might exceed your calculator's range for large factorials, though.
If the definition isn't clear, a more intuitive description is that "higher order" means "grows faster than, as n grows". Some rules of thumb:
O(n^a) is a higher order than O(n^b) if a > b.
log(n) grows more slowly than any positive power of n
exp(n) grows more quickly than any power of n
n! grows more quickly than exp(kn)
Oh, and as far as complexity goes, ignore the constant multipliers.
That's enough to deduce that the correct order is O(1), O(log n), O(2n) = O(n), O(n log n), O(n^2), O(n!)
For big-O complexities, the rule is that if two things vary only by constant factors, then they are the same. If one grows faster than another ignoring constant factors, then it is bigger.
So O(2n) and O(n) are the same -- they only vary by a constant factor (2). One way to think about it is to just drop the constants, since they don't impact the complexity.
The other problem with picking n and using a calculator is that it will give you the wrong answer for certain n. Big O is a measure of how fast something grows as n increases, but at any given n the complexities might not be in the right order. For instance, at n=2, n^2 is 4 and n! is 2, but n! grows quite a bit faster than n^2.
It's important to get that right, because for running times with multiple terms, you can drop the lesser terms -- ie, if O(f(n)) is 3n^2+2n+5, you can drop the 5 (constant), drop the 2n (3n^2 grows faster), then drop the 3 (constant factor) to get O(n^2)... but if you don't know that n^2 is bigger, you won't get the right answer.
In practice, you can just know that n is linear, log(n) grows more slowly than linear, n^a > n^b if a>b, 2^n is faster than any n^a, and n! is even faster than that. (Hint: try to avoid algorithms that have n in the exponent, and especially avoid ones that are n!.)
For the second part of your question, what happens with a binary search in the worst case? At each step, you cut the space in half until eventually you find your item (or run out of places to look). That is log2(2k). A search where you just walk through the list to find your item would take n steps. And we know from the first part that O(log(n)) < O(n), which is why binary search is faster than just a linear search.
Good luck with the exam!
In easy to understand terms the Big-O notation defines how quickly a particular function grows. Although it has its roots in pure mathematics its most popular application is the analysis of algorithms which can be analyzed on the basis of input size to determine the approximate number of operations that must be performed.
The benefit of using the notation is that you can categorize function growth rates by their complexity. Many different functions (an infinite number really) could all be expressed with the same complexity using this notation. For example, n+5, 2*n, and 4*n + 1/n all have O(n) complexity because the function g(n)=n most simply represents how these functions grow.
I put an emphasis on most simply because the focus of the notation is on the dominating term of the function. For example, O(2*n + 5) = O(2*n) = O(n) because n is the dominating term in the growth. This is because the notation assumes that n goes to infinity which causes the remaining terms to play less of a role in the growth rate. And, by convention, any constants or multiplicatives are omitted.
Read Big O notation and Time complexity for more a more in depth overview.
See this and look up for solutions here is first one.
While answering to this question a debate began in comments about complexity of QuickSort. What I remember from my university time is that QuickSort is O(n^2) in worst case, O(n log(n)) in average case and O(n log(n)) (but with tighter bound) in best case.
What I need is a correct mathematical explanation of the meaning of average complexity to explain clearly what it is about to someone who believe the big-O notation can only be used for worst-case.
What I remember if that to define average complexity you should consider complexity of algorithm for all possible inputs, count how many degenerating and normal cases. If the number of degenerating cases divided by n tend towards 0 when n get big, then you can speak of average complexity of the overall function for normal cases.
Is this definition right or is definition of average complexity different ? And if it's correct can someone state it more rigorously than I ?
You're right.
Big O (big Theta etc.) is used to measure functions. When you write f=O(g) it doesn't matter what f and g mean. They could be average time complexity, worst time complexity, space complexities, denote distribution of primes etc.
Worst-case complexity is a function that takes size n, and tells you what is maximum number of steps of an algorithm given input of size n.
Average-case complexity is a function that takes size n, and tells you what is expected number of steps of an algorithm given input of size n.
As you see worst-case and average-case complexity are functions, so you can use big O to express their growth.
If you're looking for a formal definition, then:
Average complexity is the expected running time for a random input.
Let's refer Big O Notation in Wikipedia:
Let f and g be two functions defined on some subset of the real numbers. One writes f(x)=O(g(x)) as x --> infinity if ...
So what the premise of the definition states is that the function f should take a number as an input and yield a number as an output. What input number are we talking about? It's supposedly a number of elements in the sequence to be sorted. What output number could we be talking about? It could be a number of operations done to order the sequence. But stop. What is a function? Function in Wikipedia:
a function is a relation between a set of inputs and a set of permissible outputs with the property that each input is related to exactly one output.
Are we producing exacly one output with our prior defition? No, we don't. For a given size of a sequence we can get a wide variation of number of operations. So to ensure the definition is applicable to our case we need to reduce a set possible outcomes (number of operations) to a single value. It can be a maximum ("the worse case"), a minimum ("the best case") or an average.
The conclusion is that talking about best/worst/average case is mathematically correct and using big O notation without those in context of sorting complexity is somewhat sloppy.
On the other hand, we could be more precise and use big Theta notation instead of big O notation.
I think your definition is correct, but your conclusions are wrong.
It's not necessarily true that if the proportion of "bad" cases tends to 0, then the average complexity is equal to the complexity of the "normal" cases.
For example, suppose that 1/(n^2) cases are "bad" and the rest "normal", and that "bad" cases take exactly (n^4) operations, whereas "normal" cases take exactly n operations.
Then the average number of operations required is equal to:
(n^4/n^2) + n(n^2-1)/(n^2)
This function is O(n^2), but not O(n).
In practice, though, you might find that time is polynomial in all cases, and the proportion of "bad" cases shrinks exponentially. That's when you'd ignore the bad cases in calculating an average.
Average case analysis does the following:
Take all inputs of a fixed length (say n), sum up all the running times of all instances of this length, and build the average.
The problem is you will probably have to enumerate all inputs of length n in order to come up with an average complexity.