Related
I believe that a BubbleSort is of the order O(n^2). As I read previous postings, this has to do with nested iteration. But when I dry run a simple unsorted list, (see below), I have the list sorted in 10 comparisons.
In my example, here is my list of integer values:
5 4 3 2 1
To get 5 into position, I did n-1 swap operations. (4)
To get 4 into position, I did n-2 swap operations. (3)
To get 3 into position, I did n-3 swap operations. (2)
To get 2 into position, I did n-4 swap operations. (1)
I can't see where (n^2) comes from, as when I have a list of n=5 items, I only need 10 swap operations.
BTW, I've seen (n-1).(n-1) which doesn't make sense to me, as this would give 16 swap operations.
I'm only concerned with basic BubbleSort...a simple nested FOR loop, in the interest of simplicity and clarity.
You don't seem to understand the concept of big O notation very
well. It refers to how the number of operations or the time grows in
relation to the size of the input, asymptotically, considering only the
fastest-growing term, and without considering the constant of
proportionality.
A single measurement like your 5:10 result is completely meaningless.
Imagine looking for a function that maps 5 to 10. Is it 2N? N + 5? 4N –
10? 0.4N2? N2 – 15? 4 log5N + 6? The
possibilities are limitless.
Instead, you have to analyze the algorithm to see how the number of
operations grows as N does, or measure the operations or time over many
runs, using various values of N and the most general datasets you can
devise. Note that your test case is not general at all: when checking
the average performance of a sorting algorithm, you want the input to be
in random order (the most likely case), not sorted or reverse-sorted.
If you wan to precise there are (n)*(n-1)/2 operations because you are actually computing n+(n-1)+(n-2)+...+1 as the first element needs n swaps, second element need n-1 swaps and so on. So the algorithm is of O(1/2 * (n^2) - n) which in asymptotic notations is equal to O(n^2). But what actually is happening in bubble sort is different. In bubble sort you perform a pass on array and swap the misplaced neighbors place, until there is no misplacement which means the array has become sorted. As each pass on array takes O(n) time and in the worst case you have to perform n passes so the algorithm is of O(n^2). Note that we are counting the number of comparisons not the number of swaps.
There are two version of bubble sort mentioned in wikipedia:
procedure bubbleSort( A : list of sortable items )
n = length(A)
repeat
swapped = false
for i = 1 to n-1 inclusive do
/* if this pair is out of order */
if A[i-1] > A[i] then
/* swap them and remember something changed */
swap( A[i-1], A[i] )
swapped = true
end if
end for
until not swapped
end procedure
This version perform (n-1)*(n-1) comparison -> O(n^2)
Optimizing bubble sort
The bubble sort algorithm can be easily
optimized by observing that the n-th pass finds the n-th largest
element and puts it into its final place. So, the inner loop can avoid
looking at the last n-1 items when running for the n-th time:
procedure bubbleSort( A : list of sortable items )
n = length(A)
repeat
swapped = false
for i = 1 to n-1 inclusive do
if A[i-1] > A[i] then
swap(A[i-1], A[i])
swapped = true
end if
end for
n = n - 1
until not swapped
end procedure
This version performs (n-1)+(n-2)+(n-3)+...+1 operations which is (n-1)(n-2)/2 comparisons -> O(n^2)
I am struggling with my homework and need a little push- the question is to design an algorithm that will in O(nlogm) time find multiple smallest elements 1<k1<k2<...<kn and you have m *k. I know that a simple selection algorithm takes o(n) time to find the kth element, but how do you reduce the m in your recurrence? I though to do both k1 and kn in each run, but that will only take out 2, not m/2.
Would appreciate some directions.
Thanks
If I understand the question correctly, you have a vector K containing m indices, and you want to find the k'th ranked element of A for each k in K. If K contains the smallest m indices (i.e. k=1,2,...,m) then this can be done easily in linear time T=O(n) by using quickselect to find the element k_m (since all the smaller elements will be on the left at the end of quickselect). So I'm assuming that K can contain any set of m indices.
One way to accomplish this is by running quickselect on all of K at the same time. Here is the algorithm
QuickselectMulti(A,K)
If K is empty, then return an empty result set
Pick a pivot p from A at random
Partition A into sets A0<p and A1>p.
i = A0.size + 1
if K contains i, then remove i from K and add (i=>p) to the result set.
Partition K into sets K0<i and K1>i
add QuickselectMulti(A0,K0) to the result set
subtract i from each k in K1
call QuickselectMulti(A1,K1), add i to each index of the output, and add this to the result set
return the result set
If K contains just one element, this is the same as randomized quickselect. To see why the running time is O(n log m) on average, first consider what happens when each pivot exactly splits both A and K in half. In this case, you get two recursive calls, so you have
T = n + 2T(n/2,m/2)
= n + n + 4T(n/4,m/4)
= n + n + n + 8T(n/8,m/8)
Since m drops in half each time, then n will show up log m times in this summation. To actually derive the expected running time requires a little more work, because you can't assume that the pivot will split both arrays in half, but if you work through the calculations, you will see that the running time is in fact O(n log m) on average.
On edit: The analysis of this algorithm can make this simpler by choosing the pivot by running p=Quickselect(A,k_i) where k_i is the middle element of K, rather than choosing p at random. This will guarantee that K gets split in half each time, and so the number of recursive calls will be exactly log m, and since quickselect runs in linear time, the result will still be O(n log m).
I have to divide the elements of an array into 3 groups. This needs to be done without sorting the array. Consider the example
we have 120 unsorted values thus the smallest 40 values need to be in the first group and next 40 in the second and the largest 40 in the third group
I was thinking of the median of median approach but not able to apply it to my problem, kindly suggest an algorithm.
You can call quickselect twice on your array to do this in-place and in average case linear time. The worst case runtime can also be improved to O(n) by using the linear time median of medians algorithm to choose an optimal pivot for quickselect.
For both calls to quickselect, use k = n / 3. On your first call, use quickselect on the entire array, and on your second call, use it from arr[k..n-1] (for a 0-indexed array).
Wikipedia explanation of quickselect:
Quickselect uses the same overall approach as quicksort, choosing one
element as a pivot and partitioning the data in two based on the
pivot, accordingly as less than or greater than the pivot. However,
instead of recursing into both sides, as in quicksort, quickselect
only recurses into one side – the side with the element it is
searching for. This reduces the average complexity from O(n log n) (in
quicksort) to O(n) (in quickselect).
As with quicksort, quickselect is generally implemented as an in-place
algorithm, and beyond selecting the kth element, it also partially
sorts the data. See selection algorithm for further discussion of the
connection with sorting.
To divide the elements of the array into 3 groups, use the following algorithm written in Python in combination with quickselect:
k = n / 3
# First group smallest elements in array
quickselect(L, 0, n - 1, k) # Call quickselect on your entire array
# Then group middle elements in array
quickselect(L, k, n - 1, k) # Call quickselect on subarray
# Largest elements in array are already grouped so
# there is no need to call quickselect again
The key point of all this is that quickselect uses a subroutine called partition. Partition arranges an array into two parts, those greater than a given element and those less than a given element. Thus it partially sorts an array around this element and returns its new sorted position. Thus by using quickselect, you actually partially sort the array around the kth element (note that this is different from actually sorting the entire array) in-place and in average-case linear time.
Time Complexity for quickselect:
Worst case performance O(n2)
Best case performance O(n)
Average case performance O(n)
The runtime of quickselect is almost always linear and not quadratic, but this depends on the fact that for most arrays, simply choosing a random pivot point will almost always yield linear runtime. However, if you want to improve the worst case performance for your quickselect, you can choose to use the median of medians algorithm before each call to approximate an optimal pivot to be used for quickselect. In doing so, you will improve the worst case performance of your quickselect algorithm to O(n). This overhead probably isn't necessary but if you are dealing with large lists of randomized integers it can prevent some abnormal quadratic runtimes of your algorithm.
Here is a complete example in Python which implements quickselect and applies it twice to a reverse-sorted list of 120 integers and prints out the three resulting sublists.
from random import randint
def partition(L, left, right, pivotIndex):
'''partition L so it's ordered around L[pivotIndex]
also return its new sorted position in array'''
pivotValue = L[pivotIndex]
L[pivotIndex], L[right] = L[right], L[pivotIndex]
storeIndex = left
for i in xrange(left, right):
if L[i] < pivotValue:
L[storeIndex], L[i] = L[i], L[storeIndex]
storeIndex = storeIndex + 1
L[right], L[storeIndex] = L[storeIndex], L[right]
return storeIndex
def quickselect(L, left, right, k):
'''retrieve kth smallest element of L[left..right] inclusive
additionally partition L so that it's ordered around kth
smallest element'''
if left == right:
return L[left]
# Randomly choose pivot and partition around it
pivotIndex = randint(left, right)
pivotNewIndex = partition(L, left, right, pivotIndex)
pivotDist = pivotNewIndex - left + 1
if pivotDist == k:
return L[pivotNewIndex]
elif k < pivotDist:
return quickselect(L, left, pivotNewIndex - 1, k)
else:
return quickselect(L, pivotNewIndex + 1, right, k - pivotDist)
def main():
# Setup array of 120 elements [120..1]
n = 120
L = range(n, 0, -1)
k = n / 3
# First group smallest elements in array
quickselect(L, 0, n - 1, k) # Call quickselect on your entire array
# Then group middle elements in array
quickselect(L, k, n - 1, k) # Call quickselect on subarray
# Largest elements in array are already grouped so
# there is no need to call quickselect again
print L[:k], '\n'
print L[k:k*2], '\n'
print L[k*2:]
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
I would take a look at order statistics. The kth order statistic of a statistical sample is equal to its kth-smallest value. The problem of computing the kth smallest (or largest) element of a list is called the selection problem and is solved by a selection algorithm.
It is right to think the median of the medians way. However, instead of finding the median, you might want to find both 20th and 40th smallest elements from the array. Just like finding the median, it takes only linear time to find both of them using a selection algorithm. Finally you go over the array and partition the elements according to these two elements, which is linear time as well.
PS. If this is your exercise in an algorithm class, this might help you :)
Allocate an array of the same size of the input array
scan the input array once and keep track of the min and max values of the array.
and at the same time set to 1 all the values of the second array.
compute delta = (max - min) / 3.
Scan the array again and set the second array to two if the number is > min+delta and < max-delta; otherwise if >= max-delta, set it to 3;
As a result you will have an array that tells in which group the number is.
I am assuming that all the numbers are different from each other.
Complexity: O(2n)
Given two sorted arrays of numbers, we want to find the pair with the kth largest possible sum. (A pair is one element from the first array and one element from the second array). For example, with arrays
[2, 3, 5, 8, 13]
[4, 8, 12, 16]
The pairs with largest sums are
13 + 16 = 29
13 + 12 = 25
8 + 16 = 24
13 + 8 = 21
8 + 12 = 20
So the pair with the 4th largest sum is (13, 8). How to find the pair with the kth largest possible sum?
Also, what is the fastest algorithm? The arrays are already sorted and sizes M and N.
I am already aware of the O(Klogk) solution , using Max-Heap given here .
It also is one of the favorite Google interview question , and they demand a O(k) solution .
I've also read somewhere that there exists a O(k) solution, which i am unable to figure out .
Can someone explain the correct solution with a pseudocode .
P.S.
Please DON'T post this link as answer/comment.It DOESN'T contain the answer.
I start with a simple but not quite linear-time algorithm. We choose some value between array1[0]+array2[0] and array1[N-1]+array2[N-1]. Then we determine how many pair sums are greater than this value and how many of them are less. This may be done by iterating the arrays with two pointers: pointer to the first array incremented when sum is too large and pointer to the second array decremented when sum is too small. Repeating this procedure for different values and using binary search (or one-sided binary search) we could find Kth largest sum in O(N log R) time, where N is size of the largest array and R is number of possible values between array1[N-1]+array2[N-1] and array1[0]+array2[0]. This algorithm has linear time complexity only when the array elements are integers bounded by small constant.
Previous algorithm may be improved if we stop binary search as soon as number of pair sums in binary search range decreases from O(N2) to O(N). Then we fill auxiliary array with these pair sums (this may be done with slightly modified two-pointers algorithm). And then we use quickselect algorithm to find Kth largest sum in this auxiliary array. All this does not improve worst-case complexity because we still need O(log R) binary search steps. What if we keep the quickselect part of this algorithm but (to get proper value range) we use something better than binary search?
We could estimate value range with the following trick: get every second element from each array and try to find the pair sum with rank k/4 for these half-arrays (using the same algorithm recursively). Obviously this should give some approximation for needed value range. And in fact slightly improved variant of this trick gives range containing only O(N) elements. This is proven in following paper: "Selection in X + Y and matrices with sorted rows and columns" by A. Mirzaian and E. Arjomandi. This paper contains detailed explanation of the algorithm, proof, complexity analysis, and pseudo-code for all parts of the algorithm except Quickselect. If linear worst-case complexity is required, Quickselect may be augmented with Median of medians algorithm.
This algorithm has complexity O(N). If one of the arrays is shorter than other array (M < N) we could assume that this shorter array is extended to size N with some very small elements so that all calculations in the algorithm use size of the largest array. We don't actually need to extract pairs with these "added" elements and feed them to quickselect, which makes algorithm a little bit faster but does not improve asymptotic complexity.
If k < N we could ignore all the array elements with index greater than k. In this case complexity is equal to O(k). If N < k < N(N-1) we just have better complexity than requested in OP. If k > N(N-1), we'd better solve the opposite problem: k'th smallest sum.
I uploaded simple C++11 implementation to ideone. Code is not optimized and not thoroughly tested. I tried to make it as close as possible to pseudo-code in linked paper. This implementation uses std::nth_element, which allows linear complexity only on average (not worst-case).
A completely different approach to find K'th sum in linear time is based on priority queue (PQ). One variation is to insert largest pair to PQ, then repeatedly remove top of PQ and instead insert up to two pairs (one with decremented index in one array, other with decremented index in other array). And take some measures to prevent inserting duplicate pairs. Other variation is to insert all possible pairs containing largest element of first array, then repeatedly remove top of PQ and instead insert pair with decremented index in first array and same index in second array. In this case there is no need to bother about duplicates.
OP mentions O(K log K) solution where PQ is implemented as max-heap. But in some cases (when array elements are evenly distributed integers with limited range and linear complexity is needed only on average, not worst-case) we could use O(1) time priority queue, for example, as described in this paper: "A Complexity O(1) Priority Queue for Event Driven Molecular Dynamics Simulations" by Gerald Paul. This allows O(K) expected time complexity.
Advantage of this approach is a possibility to provide first K elements in sorted order. Disadvantages are limited choice of array element type, more complex and slower algorithm, worse asymptotic complexity: O(K) > O(N).
EDIT: This does not work. I leave the answer, since apparently I am not the only one who could have this kind of idea; see the discussion below.
A counter-example is x = (2, 3, 6), y = (1, 4, 5) and k=3, where the algorithm gives 7 (3+4) instead of 8 (3+5).
Let x and y be the two arrays, sorted in decreasing order; we want to construct the K-th largest sum.
The variables are: i the index in the first array (element x[i]), j the index in the second array (element y[j]), and k the "order" of the sum (k in 1..K), in the sense that S(k)=x[i]+y[j] will be the k-th greater sum satisfying your conditions (this is the loop invariant).
Start from (i, j) equal to (0, 0): clearly, S(1) = x[0]+y[0].
for k from 1 to K-1, do:
if x[i+1]+ y[j] > x[i] + y[j+1], then i := i+1 (and j does not change) ; else j:=j+1
To see that it works, consider you have S(k) = x[i] + y[j]. Then, S(k+1) is the greatest sum which is lower (or equal) to S(k), and such as at least one element (i or j) changes. It is not difficult to see that exactly one of i or j should change.
If i changes, the greater sum you can construct which is lower than S(k) is by setting i=i+1, because x is decreasing and all the x[i'] + y[j] with i' < i are greater than S(k). The same holds for j, showing that S(k+1) is either x[i+1] + y[j] or x[i] + y[j+1].
Therefore, at the end of the loop you found the K-th greater sum.
tl;dr: If you look ahead and look behind at each iteration, you can start with the end (which is highest) and work back in O(K) time.
Although the insight underlying this approach is, I believe, sound, the code below is not quite correct at present (see comments).
Let's see: first of all, the arrays are sorted. So, if the arrays are a and b with lengths M and N, and as you have arranged them, the largest items are in slots M and N respectively, the largest pair will always be a[M]+b[N].
Now, what's the second largest pair? It's going to have perhaps one of {a[M],b[N]} (it can't have both, because that's just the largest pair again), and at least one of {a[M-1],b[N-1]}. BUT, we also know that if we choose a[M-1]+b[N-1], we can make one of the operands larger by choosing the higher number from the same list, so it will have exactly one number from the last column, and one from the penultimate column.
Consider the following two arrays: a = [1, 2, 53]; b = [66, 67, 68]. Our highest pair is 53+68. If we lose the smaller of those two, our pair is 68+2; if we lose the larger, it's 53+67. So, we have to look ahead to decide what our next pair will be. The simplest lookahead strategy is simply to calculate the sum of both possible pairs. That will always cost two additions, and two comparisons for each transition (three because we need to deal with the case where the sums are equal);let's call that cost Q).
At first, I was tempted to repeat that K-1 times. BUT there's a hitch: the next largest pair might actually be the other pair we can validly make from {{a[M],b[N]}, {a[M-1],b[N-1]}. So, we also need to look behind.
So, let's code (python, should be 2/3 compatible):
def kth(a,b,k):
M = len(a)
N = len(b)
if k > M*N:
raise ValueError("There are only %s possible pairs; you asked for the %sth largest, which is impossible" % M*N,k)
(ia,ib) = M-1,N-1 #0 based arrays
# we need this for lookback
nottakenindices = (0,0) # could be any value
nottakensum = float('-inf')
for i in range(k-1):
optionone = a[ia]+b[ib-1]
optiontwo = a[ia-1]+b[ib]
biggest = max((optionone,optiontwo))
#first deal with look behind
if nottakensum > biggest:
if optionone == biggest:
newnottakenindices = (ia,ib-1)
else: newnottakenindices = (ia-1,ib)
ia,ib = nottakenindices
nottakensum = biggest
nottakenindices = newnottakenindices
#deal with case where indices hit 0
elif ia <= 0 and ib <= 0:
ia = ib = 0
elif ia <= 0:
ib-=1
ia = 0
nottakensum = float('-inf')
elif ib <= 0:
ia-=1
ib = 0
nottakensum = float('-inf')
#lookahead cases
elif optionone > optiontwo:
#then choose the first option as our next pair
nottakensum,nottakenindices = optiontwo,(ia-1,ib)
ib-=1
elif optionone < optiontwo: # choose the second
nottakensum,nottakenindices = optionone,(ia,ib-1)
ia-=1
#next two cases apply if options are equal
elif a[ia] > b[ib]:# drop the smallest
nottakensum,nottakenindices = optiontwo,(ia-1,ib)
ib-=1
else: # might be equal or not - we can choose arbitrarily if equal
nottakensum,nottakenindices = optionone,(ia,ib-1)
ia-=1
#+2 - one for zero-based, one for skipping the 1st largest
data = (i+2,a[ia],b[ib],a[ia]+b[ib],ia,ib)
narrative = "%sth largest pair is %s+%s=%s, with indices (%s,%s)" % data
print (narrative) #this will work in both versions of python
if ia <= 0 and ib <= 0:
raise ValueError("Both arrays exhausted before Kth (%sth) pair reached"%data[0])
return data, narrative
For those without python, here's an ideone: http://ideone.com/tfm2MA
At worst, we have 5 comparisons in each iteration, and K-1 iterations, which means that this is an O(K) algorithm.
Now, it might be possible to exploit information about differences between values to optimise this a little bit, but this accomplishes the goal.
Here's a reference implementation (not O(K), but will always work, unless there's a corner case with cases where pairs have equal sums):
import itertools
def refkth(a,b,k):
(rightia,righta),(rightib,rightb) = sorted(itertools.product(enumerate(a),enumerate(b)), key=lamba((ia,ea),(ib,eb):ea+eb)[k-1]
data = k,righta,rightb,righta+rightb,rightia,rightib
narrative = "%sth largest pair is %s+%s=%s, with indices (%s,%s)" % data
print (narrative) #this will work in both versions of python
return data, narrative
This calculates the cartesian product of the two arrays (i.e. all possible pairs), sorts them by sum, and takes the kth element. The enumerate function decorates each item with its index.
The max-heap algorithm in the other question is simple, fast and correct. Don't knock it. It's really well explained too. https://stackoverflow.com/a/5212618/284795
Might be there isn't any O(k) algorithm. That's okay, O(k log k) is almost as fast.
If the last two solutions were at (a1, b1), (a2, b2), then it seems to me there are only four candidate solutions (a1-1, b1) (a1, b1-1) (a2-1, b2) (a2, b2-1). This intuition could be wrong. Surely there are at most four candidates for each coordinate, and the next highest is among the 16 pairs (a in {a1,a2,a1-1,a2-1}, b in {b1,b2,b1-1,b2-1}). That's O(k).
(No it's not, still not sure whether that's possible.)
[2, 3, 5, 8, 13]
[4, 8, 12, 16]
Merge the 2 arrays and note down the indexes in the sorted array. Here is the index array looks like (starting from 1 not 0)
[1, 2, 4, 6, 8]
[3, 5, 7, 9]
Now start from end and make tuples. sum the elements in the tuple and pick the kth largest sum.
public static List<List<Integer>> optimization(int[] nums1, int[] nums2, int k) {
// 2 * O(n log(n))
Arrays.sort(nums1);
Arrays.sort(nums2);
List<List<Integer>> results = new ArrayList<>(k);
int endIndex = 0;
// Find the number whose square is the first one bigger than k
for (int i = 1; i <= k; i++) {
if (i * i >= k) {
endIndex = i;
break;
}
}
// The following Iteration provides at most endIndex^2 elements, and both arrays are in ascending order,
// so k smallest pairs must can be found in this iteration. To flatten the nested loop, refer
// 'https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7457879/algorithm-to-optimize-nested-loops'
for (int i = 0; i < endIndex * endIndex; i++) {
int m = i / endIndex;
int n = i % endIndex;
List<Integer> item = new ArrayList<>(2);
item.add(nums1[m]);
item.add(nums2[n]);
results.add(item);
}
results.sort(Comparator.comparing(pair->pair.get(0) + pair.get(1)));
return results.stream().limit(k).collect(Collectors.toList());
}
Key to eliminate O(n^2):
Avoid cartesian product(or 'cross join' like operation) of both arrays, which means flattening the nested loop.
Downsize iteration over the 2 arrays.
So:
Sort both arrays (Arrays.sort offers O(n log(n)) performance according to Java doc)
Limit the iteration range to the size which is just big enough to support k smallest pairs searching.
Can someone explain to me in simple English or an easy way to explain it?
The Merge Sort use the Divide-and-Conquer approach to solve the sorting problem. First, it divides the input in half using recursion. After dividing, it sort the halfs and merge them into one sorted output. See the figure
It means that is better to sort half of your problem first and do a simple merge subroutine. So it is important to know the complexity of the merge subroutine and how many times it will be called in the recursion.
The pseudo-code for the merge sort is really simple.
# C = output [length = N]
# A 1st sorted half [N/2]
# B 2nd sorted half [N/2]
i = j = 1
for k = 1 to n
if A[i] < B[j]
C[k] = A[i]
i++
else
C[k] = B[j]
j++
It is easy to see that in every loop you will have 4 operations: k++, i++ or j++, the if statement and the attribution C = A|B. So you will have less or equal to 4N + 2 operations giving a O(N) complexity. For the sake of the proof 4N + 2 will be treated as 6N, since is true for N = 1 (4N +2 <= 6N).
So assume you have an input with N elements and assume N is a power of 2. At every level you have two times more subproblems with an input with half elements from the previous input. This means that at the the level j = 0, 1, 2, ..., lgN there will be 2^j subproblems with an input of length N / 2^j. The number of operations at each level j will be less or equal to
2^j * 6(N / 2^j) = 6N
Observe that it doens't matter the level you will always have less or equal 6N operations.
Since there are lgN + 1 levels, the complexity will be
O(6N * (lgN + 1)) = O(6N*lgN + 6N) = O(n lgN)
References:
Coursera course Algorithms: Design and Analysis, Part 1
On a "traditional" merge sort, each pass through the data doubles the size of the sorted subsections. After the first pass, the file will be sorted into sections of length two. After the second pass, length four. Then eight, sixteen, etc. up to the size of the file.
It's necessary to keep doubling the size of the sorted sections until there's one section comprising the whole file. It will take lg(N) doublings of the section size to reach the file size, and each pass of the data will take time proportional to the number of records.
After splitting the array to the stage where you have single elements i.e. call them sublists,
at each stage we compare elements of each sublist with its adjacent sublist. For example, [Reusing #Davi's image
]
At Stage-1 each element is compared with its adjacent one, so n/2 comparisons.
At Stage-2, each element of sublist is compared with its adjacent sublist, since each sublist is sorted, this means that the max number of comparisons made between two sublists is <= length of the sublist i.e. 2 (at Stage-2) and 4 comparisons at Stage-3 and 8 at Stage-4 since the sublists keep doubling in length. Which means the max number of comparisons at each stage = (length of sublist * (number of sublists/2)) ==> n/2
As you've observed the total number of stages would be log(n) base 2
So the total complexity would be == (max number of comparisons at each stage * number of stages) == O((n/2)*log(n)) ==> O(nlog(n))
Algorithm merge-sort sorts a sequence S of size n in O(n log n)
time, assuming two elements of S can be compared in O(1) time.
This is because whether it be worst case or average case the merge sort just divide the array in two halves at each stage which gives it lg(n) component and the other N component comes from its comparisons that are made at each stage. So combining it becomes nearly O(nlg n). No matter if is average case or the worst case, lg(n) factor is always present. Rest N factor depends on comparisons made which comes from the comparisons done in both cases. Now the worst case is one in which N comparisons happens for an N input at each stage. So it becomes an O(nlg n).
Many of the other answers are great, but I didn't see any mention of height and depth related to the "merge-sort tree" examples. Here is another way of approaching the question with a lot of focus on the tree. Here's another image to help explain:
Just a recap: as other answers have pointed out we know that the work of merging two sorted slices of the sequence runs in linear time (the merge helper function that we call from the main sorting function).
Now looking at this tree, where we can think of each descendant of the root (other than the root) as a recursive call to the sorting function, let's try to assess how much time we spend on each node... Since the slicing of the sequence and merging (both together) take linear time, the running time of any node is linear with respect to the length of the sequence at that node.
Here's where tree depth comes in. If n is the total size of the original sequence, the size of the sequence at any node is n/2i, where i is the depth. This is shown in the image above. Putting this together with the linear amount of work for each slice, we have a running time of O(n/2i) for every node in the tree. Now we just have to sum that up for the n nodes. One way to do this is to recognize that there are 2i nodes at each level of depth in the tree. So for any level, we have O(2i * n/2i), which is O(n) because we can cancel out the 2is! If each depth is O(n), we just have to multiply that by the height of this binary tree, which is logn. Answer: O(nlogn)
reference: Data Structures and Algorithms in Python
The recursive tree will have depth log(N), and at each level in that tree you will do a combined N work to merge two sorted arrays.
Merging sorted arrays
To merge two sorted arrays A[1,5] and B[3,4] you simply iterate both starting at the beginning, picking the lowest element between the two arrays and incrementing the pointer for that array. You're done when both pointers reach the end of their respective arrays.
[1,5] [3,4] --> []
^ ^
[1,5] [3,4] --> [1]
^ ^
[1,5] [3,4] --> [1,3]
^ ^
[1,5] [3,4] --> [1,3,4]
^ x
[1,5] [3,4] --> [1,3,4,5]
x x
Runtime = O(A + B)
Merge sort illustration
Your recursive call stack will look like this. The work starts at the bottom leaf nodes and bubbles up.
beginning with [1,5,3,4], N = 4, depth k = log(4) = 2
[1,5] [3,4] depth = k-1 (2^1 nodes) * (N/2^1 values to merge per node) == N
[1] [5] [3] [4] depth = k (2^2 nodes) * (N/2^2 values to merge per node) == N
Thus you do N work at each of k levels in the tree, where k = log(N)
N * k = N * log(N)
MergeSort algorithm takes three steps:
Divide step computes mid position of sub-array and it takes constant time O(1).
Conquer step recursively sort two sub arrays of approx n/2 elements each.
Combine step merges a total of n elements at each pass requiring at most n comparisons so it take O(n).
The algorithm requires approx logn passes to sort an array of n elements and so total time complexity is nlogn.
lets take an example of 8 element{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8} you have to first divide it in half means n/2=4({1,2,3,4} {5,6,7,8}) this two divides section take 0(n/2) and 0(n/2) times so in first step it take 0(n/2+n/2)=0(n)time.
2. Next step is divide n/22 which means (({1,2} {3,4} )({5,6}{7,8})) which would take
(0(n/4),0(n/4),0(n/4),0(n/4)) respectively which means this step take total 0(n/4+n/4+n/4+n/4)=0(n) time.
3. next similar as previous step we have to divide further second step by 2 means n/222 ((({1},{2},{3},{4})({5},{6},{7},{8})) whose time is 0(n/8+n/8+n/8+n/8+n/8+n/8+n/8+n/8)=0(n)
which means every step takes 0(n) times .lets steps would be a so time taken by merge sort is 0(an) which mean a must be log (n) because step will always divide by 2 .so finally TC of merge sort is 0(nlog(n))