Time complexity of the program using recurrence equation - algorithm

Question

I want to find out the time complexity of the program using recurrence equations.
That is ..
int f(int x)
{
if(x<1) return 1;
else return f(x-1)+g(x);
}
int g(int x)
{
if(x<2) return 1;
else return f(x-1)+g(x/2);
}
I write its recurrence equation and tried to solve it but it keep on getting complex
T(n) =T(n-1)+g(n)+c
=T(n-2)+g(n-1)+g(n)+c+c
=T(n-3)+g(n-2)+g(n-1)+g(n)+c+c+c
=T(n-4)+g(n-3)+g(n-2)+g(n-1)+g(n)+c+c+c+c
……………………….
……………………..
Kth time …..
=kc+g(n)+g(n-1)+g(n-3)+g(n-4).. .. . … +T(n-k)
Let at kth time input become 1
Then n-k=1
K=n-1
Now i end up with this..
T(n)= (n-1)c+g(n)+g(n-1)+g(n-2)+g(n-3)+….. .. g(1)
I ‘m not able to solve it further.
Any way if we count the number of function calls in this program , it can be easily seen that time complexity is exponential but I want proof it using recurrence . how can it be done ?
Explanation in Anwer 1, looks correct , similar work I did.
The most difficult task in this code is to write its recursion equation. I have drawn another diagram , I identified some patterns , I think we can get some help form this diagram what could be the possible recurrence equation.
And I came up with this equation , not sure if it is right ??? Please help.
T(n) = 2*T(n-1) + c * logn

Answer 1

Ok, I think I have been able to prove that f(x) = Theta(2^x) (note that the time complexity is the same). This also proves that g(x) = Theta(2^x) as f(x) > g(x) > f(x-1).
First as everyone noted, it is easy to prove that f(x) = Omega(2^x).
Now we have the relation that f(x) <= 2 f(x-1) + f(x/2) (since f(x) > g(x))
We will show that, for sufficiently large x, there is some constant K > 0 such that
f(x) <= K*H(x), where H(x) = (2 + 1/x)^x
This implies that f(x) = Theta(2^x), as H(x) = Theta(2^x), which itself follows from the fact that H(x)/2^x -> sqrt(e) as x-> infinity (wolfram alpha link of the limit).
Now (warning: heavier math, perhap cs.stackexchange or math.stackexchange is better suited)
according to wolfram alpha (click the link and see series expansion near x = infinity),
H(x) = exp(x ln(2) + 1/2 + O(1/x))
And again, according to wolfram alpha (click the link (different from above) and see the series expansion for x = infinity), we have that
H(x) - 2H(x-1) = [1/2x + O(1/x^2)]exp(x ln(2) + 1/2 + O(1/x))
and so
[H(x) - 2H(x-1)]/H(x/2) -> infinity as x -> infinity
Thus, for sufficiently large x (say x > L) we have the inequality
H(x) >= 2H(x-1) + H(x/2)
Now there is some K (dependent only on L (for instance K = f(2L))) such that
f(x) <= K*H(x) for all x <= 2L
Now we proceed by (strong) induction (you can revert to natural numbers if you want to)
f(x+1) <= 2f(x) + f((x+1)/2)
By induction, the right side is
<= 2*K*H(x) + K*H((x+1)/2)
And we proved earlier that
2*H(x) + H((x+1)/2) <= H(x+1)
Thus f(x+1) <= K * H(x+1)

Answer 2

Using memoisation, both functions can easily be computed in O(n) time. But the program takes at least O(2^n) time, and thus is a very inefficient way of computing f(n) and g(n)
To prove that the program takes at most O(2+epsilon)^n time for any epsilon > 0:
Let F(n) and G(n) be the number of function calls that are made in evaluating f(n) and g(n), respectively. Clearly (counting the addition as 1 function call):
F(0) = 1; F(n) = F(n-1) + G(n) + 1
G(1) = 1; G(n) = F(n-1) + G(n/2) + 1
Then one can prove:
F and G are monotonic
F > G
Define H(1) = 2; H(n) = 2 * H(n-1) + H(n/2) + 1
clearly, H > F
for all n, H(n) > 2 * H(n-1)
hence H(n/2) / H(n-1) -> 0 for sufficiently large n
hence H(n) < (2 + epsilon) * H(n-1) for all epsilon > 0 and sufficiently large n
hence H in O((2 + epsilon)^n) for any epsilon > 0
(Edit: originally I concluded here that the upper bound is O(2^n). That is incorrect,as nhahtdh pointed out, but see below)
so this is the best I can prove.... Because G < F < H they are also in O((2 + epsilon)^n) for any epsilon > 0
Postscript (after seeing Mr Knoothes solution): Because i.m.h.o a good mathematical proof gives insight, rather than lots of formulas, and SO exists for all those future generations (hi gals!):
For many algorithms, calculating f(n+1) involves twice (thrice,..) the amount of work for f(n), plus something more. If this something more becomes relatively less with increasing n (which is often the case) using a fixed epsilon like above is not optimal.
Replacing the epsilon above by some decreasing function ε(n) of n will in many cases (if ε decreases fast enough, say ε(n)=1/n) yield an upper bound O((2 + ε(n))^n ) = O(2^n)

Answer 3

Let f(0)=0 and g(0)=0
From the function we have,
f(x) = f(x - 1) + g(x)
g(x) = f(x - 1) + g(x/2)
Substituting g(x) in f(x) we get,
f(x) = f(x-1) + f(x -1) + g(x/2)
∴f(x) = 2f(x-1) + g(x/2)
Expanding this we get,
f(x) = 2f(x-1)+f(x/2-1)+f(x/4-1)+ ... + f(1)
Let s(x) be a function defined as follows,
s(x) = 2s(x-1)
Now clearly f(x)=Ω(s(x)).
The complexity of s(x) is O(2x).
Therefore function f(x)=Ω(2x).

Answer 4

I think is clear to see that f(n) > 2n, because f(n) > h(n) = 2h(n-1) = 2n.
Now I claim that for every n, there is an ε such that:
f(n) < (2+ε)n, to see this, let do it by induction, but to make it more sensible at first I'll use ε = 1, to show f(n) <= 3n, then I'll extend it.
We will use strong induction, suppose for every m < n, f(m) < 3m then we have:
f(n) = 2[f(n-1) + f(n/2 -1) + f(n/4 -1)+ ... +f(1-1)]
but for this part:
A = f(n/2 -1) + f(n/4 -1)+ ... +f(1-1)
we have:
f(n/2) = 2[f(n/2 -1) + f(n/4 -1)+ ... +f(1-1]) ==>
A <= f(n/2) [1]
So we can rewrite f(n):
f(n) = 2f(n-1) + A < 2f(n-1) +f(n/2),
Now let back to our claim:
f(n) < 2*3^(n-1) + 2*3^(n/2)==>
f(n) < 2*3^(n-1) + 3^(n-1) ==>
f(n) < 3^n. [2]
By [2], proof of f(n)&in;O(3n) is completed.
But If you want to extend this to the format of (2+ε)n, just use 1 to replace the inequality, then we will have
for ε > 1/(2+ε)n/2-1 → f(n) < (2+ε)n.[3]
Also by [3] you can say that for every n there is an ε such that f(n) < (2+ε)n actually there is constant ε such that for n > n0, f(n)&in;O((2+ε)n). [4]
Now we can use wolfarmalpha like #Knoothe, by setting ε=1/n, then we will have:
f(n) < (2+1/n)n which results on f(n) < e*2n, and by our simple lower bound at start we have: f(n)&in; Θ(2^n).[5]
P.S: I didn't calculate epsilon exactly, but you can do it with pen and paper simply, I think this epsilon is not correct, but is easy to find it, and if is hard tell me is hard, and I'll write it.