So I have this problem to do and I am not really sure where to start:
Using the definition of Big-O, prove the following:
T(n) = 2n + 3 ∈ O(n)
T(n) = 5n + 1 ∈ O(n2)
T(n) = 4n2 + 2n + 3 ∈ O(n2)
if anyone can point me in the right direction (you don't necessarily have to give me the exact answers), I would greatly appreciate it.
You can use the same trick to solve all of these problems. As a hint, use the fact that
If a ≤ b, then for any n ≥ 1, na ≤ nb.
As an example, here's how you could approach the first of these: If n ≥ 1, then 2n + 3 ≤ 2n + 3n = 5n. Therefore, if you take n0 = 1 and c = 5, you have that for any n ≥ n0 that 2n + 3 ≤ 5n. Therefore, 2n + 3 = O(n).
Try using a similar approach to solve the other problems. For the second problem, you might want to use it twice - once to upper-bound 5n + 1 with some linear function, and once more to upper bound that linear function with some quadratic function.
Hope this helps!
Related
I have a few asymptotic notation problems I do not entirely grasp.
So when proving asymptotic complexity, I understand the operations of finding a constant and the n0 term of which the notation will be true for. So, for example:
Prove 7n+4 = Ω(n)
In such a case we would pick a constant c, such that it is lower than 7 since this regarding Big Omega. Picking 6 would result in
7n+4 >= 6n
n+4 >= 0
n = -4
But since n0 cannot be a negative term, we pick a positive integer, so n0 = 1.
But what about a problem like this:
Prove that n^3 − 91n^2 − 7n − 14 = Ω(n^3).
I picked 1/2 as the constant, reaching
1/2n^3 - 91n^2 - 7n -14 >= 0.
But I am unsure how to continue. Also, a problem like this, I think regarding theta:
Let g(n) = 27n^2 + 18n and let f(n) = 0.5n^2 − 100. Find positive constants n0, c1 and c2 such
that c1f(n) ≤ g(n) ≤ c2f(n) for all n ≥ n0.
In such a case am I performing two separate operations here, one big O comparison and one Big Omega comparison, so that there is a theta relationship, or tight bound? If so, how would I go about that?
To show n3 − 91n2 − 7n − 14 is in Ω(n3), we need to exhibit some numbers n0 and c such that, for all n ≥ n0:
n3 − 91n2 − 7n − 14 ≥ cn3
You've chosen c = 0.5, so let's go with that. Rearranging gives:
n3 − 0.5n3 ≥ 91n2 + 7n + 14
Multiplying both sides by 2 and simplifying:
182n2 + 14n + 28 ≤ n3
For all n ≥ 1, we have:
182n2 + 14n + 28 ≤ 182n2 + 14n2 + 28n2 = 224n2
And when n ≥ 224, we have 224n2 ≤ n3. Therefore, the choice of n0 = 224 and c = 0.5 demonstrates that the original function is in Ω(n3).
I am wonder how to exactly find the tight upper bound for T(n)?
for one example below:
T(n)=T( n/2 + n(1/2)) + n.
I am not that sure how to use the domain or range transform here.
I use the domain transform here.
let
n = 22k ==> n/2 = 22k-1
and n1/2 = 22k-1
After that, i do not know how to solve this kind of problem with addition in T(n).
Hope someone can tell me how to solve these kind recurrences.
Thanks Ali Amiri,
As what you said, I approximately consider.
T(n)=T( n/2 ) + n.
and let,
n = 2k,
==> T(2k)= T(2k-1)+ 2k
suppose ak = T(2k)
using domain transform, I get:
ak = 2kc1 + c2
hence,
T(n) = O(n).
Am I right? or still wrong?
Ali Amiri's intuition is correct, but it's not a formal argument. Really there needs to be a base case like
T(n) = 1 for all 0 ≤ n < 9
and then we can write
1/2
n ≤ n/3 for all n ≥ 9
and then guess and check a nondecreasing O(n) solution for the recurrence
T'(n) = T'(n/2 + n/3) + n
and argue that T = O(T') = O(n).
How do you work this out? do you get c first which is the ratio of the two functions then with the ratio find the range of n ? how can you tell ? please explain i'm really lost, Thanks.
Example 1: Prove that running time T(n) = n^3 + 20n + 1 is O(n^3)
Proof: by the Big-Oh definition,
T(n) is O(n^3) if T(n) ≤ c·n^3 for some n ≥ n0 .
Let us check this condition:
if n^3 + 20n + 1 ≤ c·n^3 then 1 + 20/n^2 + 1/n^3 <=c .
Therefore,
the Big-Oh condition holds for n ≥ n0 = 1 and c ≥ 22 (= 1 + 20 + 1). Larger
values of n0 result in smaller factors c (e.g., for n0 = 10 c ≥ 1.201 and so on) but in
any case the above statement is valid.
I think the trick you're seeing is that you aren't thinking of LARGE numbers. Hence, let's take a counter example:
T(n) = n^4 + n
and let's assume that we think it's O(N^3) instead of O(N^4). What you could see is
c = n + 1/n^2
which means that c, a constant, is actually c(n), a function dependent upon n. Taking N to a really big number shows that no matter what, c == c(n), a function of n, so it can't be O(N^3).
What you want is in the limit as N goes to infinity, everything but a constant remains:
c = 1 + 1/n^3
Now you can easily say, it is still c(n)! As N gets really, really big 1/n^3 goes to zero. Hence, with very large N in the case of declaring T(n) in O(N^4) time, c == 1 or it is a constant!
Does that help?
I'm trying to follow Cormen's book "Introduction to Algorithms" (page 59, I believe) about substitution method for solving recurrences. I don't get the notation used for MERGE-SORT substitution:
T(n) ≤ 2(c ⌊n/2⌋lg(⌊n/2⌋)) + n
≤ cn lg(n/2) + n
= cn lg n - cn lg 2 + n
= cn lg n - cn + n
≤ cn lg n
Part I don't understand is how do you turn ⌊n/2⌋ to n/2 assuming that it denotes recursion. Can you explain the substitution method and its general thought process (especially the math induction part) in a simple and easily understandable way ? I know there's a great answer of that sort about big-O notation here in SO.
The idea behind the substitution method is to bound a function defined by a recurrence via strong induction. I'm going to assume that T(n) is an upper bound on the number of comparisons merge sort uses to sort n elements and define it by the following recurrence with boundary condition T(1) = 0.
T(n) = T(floor(n/2)) + T(ceil(n/2)) + n - 1.
Cormen et al. use n instead of n - 1 for simplicity and cheat by using floor twice. Let's not cheat.
Let H(n) be the hypothesis that T(n) ≤ c n lg n. Technically we should choose c right now, so let's set c = 100. Cormen et al. opt to write down statements that hold for every (positive) c until it becomes clear what c should be, which is an optimization.
The base cases are H(1) and H(2), namely T(1) ≤ 0 and T(2) ≤ 2 c. Okay, we don't need any comparisons to sort one element, and T(2) = T(1) + T(1) + 1 = 1 < 200.
Inductively, when n ≥ 3, assume for all 1 ≤ n' < n that H(n') holds. We need to prove H(n).
T(n) = T(floor(n/2)) + T(ceil(n/2)) + n - 1
≤ c floor(n/2) lg floor(n/2) + T(ceil(n/2)) + n - 1
by the inductive hypothesis H(floor(n/2))
≤ c floor(n/2) lg floor(n/2) + c ceil(n/2) lg ceil(n/2) + n - 1
by the inductive hypothesis H(ceil(n/2))
≤ c floor(n/2) lg (n/2) + c ceil(n/2) lg ceil(n/2) + n - 1
since 0 < floor(n/2) ≤ n/2 and lg is increasing
Now we have to deal with the consequences of our honesty and bound lg ceil(n/2).
lg ceil(n/2) = lg (n/2) + lg (ceil(n/2) / (n/2))
< lg (n/2) + lg ((n/2 + 1) / (n/2))
since 0 < ceil(n/2) ≤ n/2 + 1 and lg is increasing
= lg (n/2) + log (1 + 2/n) / log 2
≤ lg (n/2) + 2/(n log 2)
by the inequality log (1 + x) ≤ x, which can be proved with calculus
Okay, back to bounding T(n).
T(n) ≤ c floor(n/2) lg (n/2) + c ceil(n/2) (lg (n/2) + 2/(n log 2)) + n - 1
since 0 < floor(n/2) ≤ n/2 and lg is increasing
= c n lg n - c n + n + 2 c ceil(n/2) / (n log 2) - 1
since floor(n/2) + ceil(n/2) = n and lg (n/2) = lg n - 1
≤ c n lg n - (c - 1) n + 2 c/log 2
since ceil(n/2) ≤ n
≤ c n lg n
since, for all n' ≥ 3, we have (c - 1) n' = 99 n' ≥ 297 > 200/log 2 ≈ 288.539.
Commentary
I guess this doesn't explain the why very well, but (hopefully) at least the derivations are correct in all of the details. People who write proofs like these often skip the base cases and ignore floor and ceil because, well, the details usually are just an annoyance that affects the constant c (which most computer scientists not named Knuth don't care about).
To me, the substitution method is for confirming a guess rather than formulating one. The interesting question is how one comes up with a guess. Personally, if the recurrence is (i) not something that looks like Fibonacci (e.g., linear homogeneous recurrences) and (ii) not covered by Akra–Bazzi, a generalization of the Master Theorem, then I'm going to have some trouble coming up with a good guess.
Also, I should mention the most common failure mode of the substitution method: if one can't quite choose c to be a large enough to swallow the extra terms from the subproblems, then the bound may be wrong. On the other hand, more base cases might suffice. In the preceding proof, I used two base cases because I couldn't prove the very last inequality unless I knew that n > 2/log 2.
I've decided to try and do a problem about analyzing the worst possible runtime of an algorithm and to gain some practice.
Since I'm a beginner I only need help in expressing my answer in a right way.
I came accros this problem in a book that uses the following algorithm:
Input: A set of n points (x1, y1), . . . , (xn, yn) with n ≥ 2.
Output: The squared distance of a closest pair of points.
ClosePoints
1. if n = 2 then return (x1 − x2)^2 + (y1 − y2)^2
2. else
3. d ← 0
4. for i ← 1 to n − 1 do
5. for j ← i + 1 to n do
6. t ← (xi − xj)^2 + (yi − yj)^2
7. if t < d then
8. d ← t
9. return d
My question is how can I offer a good proof that T(n) = O(n^2),T(n) = Ω(n^2) and T (n) = Θ(n^2)?,where T(n) represents the worst possible runtime.
I know that we say that f is O(g),
if and only if there is an n0 ∈ N and c > 0 in R such that for all
n ≥ n0 we have
f(n) ≤ cg(n).
And also we say that f is Ω(g) if there is an
n0 ∈ N and c > 0 in R such that for all n ≥ n0 we have
f(n) ≥ cg(n).
Now I know that the algoritm is doing c * n(n - 1) iterations, yielding T(n)=c*n^2 - c*n.
The first 3 lines are executed O(1) times line 4 loops for n - 1 iterations which is O(n) . Line 5 loops for n - i iterations which is also O(n) .Does each line of the inner loop's content
(lines 6-7) takes (n-1)(n-i) or just O(1)?and why?The only variation is how many times 8.(d ← t) is performed but it must be lower than or equal to O(n^2).
So,how should I write a good and complete proof that T(n) = O(n^2),T(n) = Ω(n^2) and T (n) = Θ(n^2)?
Thanks in advance
Count the number of times t changes its value. Since changing t is the innermost operation performed, finding how many times that happens will allow you to find the complexity of the entire algorithm.
i = 1 => j runs n - 1 times (t changes value n - 1 times)
i = 2 => j runs n - 2 times
...
i = n - 1 => j runs 1 time
So the number of times t changes is 1 + 2 + ... + n - 1. This sum is equal n(n - 1) / 2. This is dominated by 0.5 * n^2.
Now just find appropriate constants and you can prove that this is Ω(n^2), O(n^2), Θ(n^2).
T(n)=c*n^2 - c*n approaches c*n^2 for large n, which is the definition of O(n^2).
if you observe the two for loops, each for loop gives an O(n) because each loop is incrementing/decrementing in a linear fashion. hence, two loops combined roughly give a O(n^2) complexity. the whole point of big-oh is to find the dominating term- coeffecients do not matter. i would strongly recommend formatting your pseudocode in a proper manner in which it is not ambiguous. in any case, the if and else loops do no affect the complexity of the algorithm.
lets observe the various definitions:
Big-Oh
• f(n) is O(g(n)) if f(n) is
asymptotically “less than or equal” to
g(n)
Big-Omega
• f(n) is Ω(g(n)) if f(n) is
asymptotically “greater than or equal”
to g(n)
Big-Theta
• f(n) is Θ(g(n)) if f(n) is
asymptotically “equal” to g(n)
so all you need are to find constraints which satisfy the answer.