Hi can someone explain me how to resolve this homework?
(n + log n)3^n = O((4^n)/n).
i think it's the same as resolving this inequality: (n + log n)3^n < c((4^n)/n)).
thanks in advance
You need to find a c (as you mentioned in your problem), and you need to show that the inequality holds for all n greater than some k.
By showing that you can find the c and k in question, then by definition you've proved the big-O bound.
Conversely, if you can't find such a c and k, this is because the function on the left is not really upper-bounded by the function on the right. That shouldn't be the case here, though (and you'll know you're getting a more intuitive understanding of asymptotic growth/bounding when you can articulate exactly why).
By definition, f(n) = O(g(n)) is true if there exists a constant M such that |f(n)| < M|g(n)| for every n. In computer science, numbers are nonnegative, so this amounts to finding an M such that f(n) / g(n) < M
This, in turn, can be done by proving that f(n) / g(n) has a finite limit as n increases towards infinity (by definition of a limit). Which, in the case of your (n^2 + n log n) * (3/4)^n is pretty obvious by virtue of how exponential functions work.
Related
Could please help me to understand notation's that mention in the picture?, I try to understand "Big O notation" in that under the "Family of Bachmann–Landau notations" Table there is "Formal Definition" column, in that, there are lot's notation with equation, i did't come across these notation before. could any one familiar with this ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation#Family_of_Bachmann–Landau_notations
The logic behind that definitions are actually quite simple, it basically says that no matter what constants are multiplying the result, from some point where n is big enough, the one of the function will start to being bigger/smaller and it remains that way.
To see real difference, I will explain th small-o (which says that some function has smaller complexity than other), it says that for all k bigger than zero you can find some value of n called n_0 for which all n bigger than n_0 follows this pattern: f(n) <= k*g(n).
So you have two functions and you put there n as a parameter. Then no matter what you put as k, you always find value of n for which f(n) <= k*g(n) and all value that are bigger than the one you have find will also fit into this equation.
Consider for example:
f(n) = n * 100
g(n) = n^2
So if you try to put i.e. n=5 there, it does not say you what has bigger complexity, because 5*100=500 and 5^2=25. If you put number big enough, i.e. n=100, then f(n)=100*100=10000 and g(n)=100^2=100*100=10000. So we get to the same value. If you try to put anything bigger than that, the g(n) will become bigger and bigger.
It also have to follow the equation f(n) <= k*g(n). In example, if I put i.e. k=0.1 then
100*n <= 0.1*n^2 *10
1000n <= n^2 /n
1000 < n
So with that functions, you can see that for k=0.1 you have n_0 = 1000 to fulfill the equations, but it is enough. All n > 1000 will be bigger and the function g(n) will always be bigger, therefore it has higher complexity. (ok, the real proof is not that easy, but you can see the pattern). The point is, no matter what k will be, even if it is equal k=0.000000001, there always be breaking point of n_0 and from that point, all g(n) will be bigger than f(n)
We can also try some negative equations to see whats difference between O(n) and O(n^2).
Lets take:
f(n) = n
g(n) = 10*n
So in standard algebra the g(n) > f(n), right? But in complexity theory we need to know if it grows bigger and if so, if it grows bigger than just multiplying it with constant.
So if we consider that k=0.01, then you can see that no matter how big the n will be, you never find n_0 that fulfills the f(n) <= k*g(n), so the f(n) != o(g(n))
In terms of complexity theory you can take the notations as smaller/bigger, so
f(n) = o(g(n)) -> f(n) < g(n)
f(n) = O(g(n)) -> f(n) <= g(n)
f(n) = Big-Theta(g(n)) -> f(n) === g(n)
//... etc, remember these euqations are not algebraic, just for complexity
I was doing study on Asymptotic Notations Topic, i recon that its formula is so simple yet it tells nothing and there are couple of things i don't understand.
When we say
f(n) <= c.g(n) where n >= n₀
And we don't know the value of c =? and n=? at first but by doing division of f(n) or g(n) we get the value of c. (here is where confusion lies)
First Question: How do we decide which side's 'n' has to get divided in equation f(n) or g(n)?
Suppose we have to prove:
2n(square) = O(n(cube))
here f(n) = 2(n(square)) and g(n)=n(cube)
which will form as:
2(n(square)) = c . n(cube)
Now in the notes i have read they are dividing 2(n(square)) to get the value of c by doing that we get c = 1;
But if we do it dividing n(cube) [which i don't know whether we can do it or not] we get c = 2;
How do we know what value we have to divide ?
Second Problem: Where does n₀ come from what's its task ?
Well by formula we know n >= n(0) which means what ever we take n we should take the value of n(0) or should be greater what n is.
But i am confuse that where do we use n₀ ? Why it is needed ?
By just finding C and N can't we get to conclusion if
n(square) = O(n(cube)) or not.
Would any one like to address this? Many thanks in advance.
Please don't snub me if i ask anything stupid or give -1. Address it please any useful link which covers all this would be enough as well:3
I have gone through the following links before posting this question this is what i understand and here are those links:
http://openclassroom.stanford.edu/MainFolder/VideoPage.php?course=IntroToAlgorithms&video=CS161L2P8&speed=
http://faculty.cse.tamu.edu/djimenez/ut/utsa/cs3343/lecture3.html
https://sites.google.com/sites/algorithmss15
From the second url in your question:
Let's define big-Oh more formally:
O(g(n)) = { the set of all f such that there exist positive constants c and n0 satisfying 0 <= f(n) <= cg(n) for all n >= n0 }.
This means, that for f(n) = 4*n*n + 135*n*log(n) + 1e8*n the big-O is O(n*n).
Because for large enough c and n0 this is true:
4*n*n + 135*n*log(n) + 1e8*n = f(n) <= O(n*n) = c*n*n
In this particular case the [c,n0] can be for example [6, 1e8], because (this is of course not valid mathematical proof, but I hope it's "obvious" from it):
f(1e8) = 4*1e16 + 135*8*1e8 + 1e16 = 5*1e16 + 1080*1e8 <= 6*1e16 = 6*1e8*1e8 =~= O(n*n). There are of course many more possible [c,n0] for which the f(n) <= c*n*n holds true, but you need to find only one such pair to prove the f(n) has O(f(n)) of O(n*n).
As you can see, for n=1 you need quite a huge c (like 1e9), so at first look the f(n) may look much bigger than n*n, but in the asymptotic notion you don't care about the first few initial values, as long as the behaviour since some boundary is as desired. That boundary is some [c,n0]. If you can find such boundary ([6, 1e8]), then QED: "f(n) has big-O of n*n".
The n >= n₀ means that whatever you say in the lemma can be false for some first k (countable) parameters n' : n' < n₀, but since some n₀ the lemma is true for all the rest of (bigger) integers.
It says that you don't care about first few integers ("first few" can be as "little" as 1e400, or 1e400000, ...etc... from the theory point of view), and you only care about the bigger (big enough, bigger than n₀) n values.
Ultimately it means, that in the big-O notation you usually write the simplest and lowest function having the same asymptotic notion as the examined f(n).
For example for any f(n) of polynomial type like f(n) = ∑aini, i=0..k the O(f(n)) = O(nk).
So I did throw away all the lower 0..(k-1) powers of n, as they stand no chance against nk in the long run (for large n). And the ak does lose to some bigger c.
In case you are lost in that i,k,...:
f(n) = 34n4 + 23920392n2 has O(n4).
As for large enough n that n4 will "eclipse" any value created from n2. And 34n4 is only 34 times bigger than n4 => 34 is constant (relates to c) and can be omitted from big-O notation too.
The informal idea of Big-O is described as "it's the highest order of growth of a function" ie f(n) = 3n^2 + 5n + 50 is just O(n^2).
I do understand that Big-O is just a way of saying "guaranteed to not be worse than this period". Formally, it appears the definition is f(n) -> O(g(n)) iff f(n) <= c * g(n) where c is positive
First some mathy stuff.. if f(n) = 5n^2, g(n)=n I should be able to show 5n^2 isn't O(g(n)) by doing
5n^2 <= cn
5n <= c
If the idea is that is that c isn't a constant(I have no idea if that's a requirement), and that is proof f(n) isnt in O(g(n)), what about if g(n) were n^3 (of which it surely should be contained)?
5n^2 <= cn^3
5/n <= c
I have a misunderstanding of how the math works out for all of this I assume, so I ask:
How does all this fancy stuff work
How does it connect to the simple definition given in my data structures class?
Thanks for any help
n is a positive integer, which means that 1<=n and therefore 5/n<=5/1=5, so you can pick c=5.
A more complete definition also allows you to pick n0 and a, both constants, and only prove that f(n)<=a+c*g(n) for all n0<n
c is a constant (i.e. independent of n)
In your first example (it's proof by contradiction):
i.e. assume
5n^2 <= cn
5n <= c
But for any fixed constant c, we can find a value of n that makes it untrue.
For example pick c = 1000000, then a value of n = 200001 would be a contradiction.
In your second example, we know that f(n) is O(n^2), therefore it is also O(n^3) and above. If you are bounded by k(n^2), you are also bounded by j(n^3)
The informal idea of Big-O is described as "it's the highest order of growth of a function" ie f(n) = 3n^2 + 5n + 50 is just O(n^2).
I wouldn't say that this is the idea behind Big-O. Informally Big-O is some rough estimation of what a given function cannot exceed. And it's usage is mostly approximating how something will grow for big numbers.
For example, if we take a 6 digit number, we can definitely say that it's less than million without looking for its digits. There are a lot of cases when this is enough and we don't need to analyse all digits.
For analysing function growth two factors play their role:
we only interested in function behaviour for very large numbers
if f is bigger than g, but we can fix it with multiplying g by some big constant, that's means f's advantage is not because of growth
This leads us to two parts of the definition: (1) some constant and (2) for big enough n
And for polynomials indeed, the higher order component defines grow speed.
So, clearly, log(n) is O(n). But, what about (log(n))^2? What about sqrt(n) or log(n)—what bounds what?
There's a family of comparisons like this:
nᵃ (vs.) (log(n))ᵇ
I run into these comparisons a lot, and I've never come up with a good way to solve them. Hints for tactics for solving the general case?
[EDIT: I'm not talking about the computational complexity of calculating the values of these functions. I'm talking about the functions themselves. E.g., f(n) = n is an upper bound on g(n) = log(n) because f(n) ≤ c g(n) for c = 1 and n₀ > 0.]
log(n)^a is always O(n^b), for any positive constants a, b.
Are you looking for a proof? All such problems can be reduced to seeing that log(n) is O(n), by the following trick:
log(n)^a = O(n^b) is equivalent to:
log(n) = O(n^{b/a}), since raising to the 1/a power is an increasing function.
This is equivalent to
log(m^{a/b}) = O(m), by setting m = n^{b/a}.
This is equivalent to log(m) = O(m), since log(m^{a/b}) = (a/b)*log(m).
You can prove that log(n) = O(n) by induction, focusing on the case where n is a power of 2.
log n -- O(log n)
sqrt n -- O(sqrt n)
n^2 -- O(n^2)
(log n)^2 -- O((log n)^2)
n^a versus (log(n))^b
You need either bases or powers the same. So use your math to change n^a to log(n)^(whatever it gets to get this base) or (whatever it gets to get this power)^b. There is no general case
I run into these comparisons a lot (...)
Hints for tactics for solving the general case?
As you as about general case and that you following a lot into such questions. Here is what I recommend :
Use limit definition of BigO notation, once you know:
f(n) = O(g(n)) iff limit (n approaches +inf) f(n)/g(n) exists and is not +inf
You can use Computer Algebra System, for example opensource Maxima, here is in Maxima documentation about limits .
For more detailed info and example - check out THIS answer
My question refers to the big-Oh notation in algorithm analysis. While Big-Oh seems to be a math question, it's much useful in algorithm analysis.
Suppose two functions are defined below:
f(n) = 2( to the power n) when n is even
f(n) = n when n is odd
g(n) = n when n is even
g(n) = 2( to the power n) when n is odd.
For the above two functions which one is big-Oh of other? Or whether any function is not a Big-Oh of another function.
Thanks!
In this case,
f ∉ O(g), and
g ∉ O(f).
This is because no matter what constants N and k you pick,
there exists i ≥ N such that f(i) > k g(i), and
there exists j ≥ N such that g(j) > k f(j).
The Big-Oh relationship is quite specific in that one function is, after a finite n, always larger than the other.
Is this true here? If so, give such a n. If not, you should prove it.
Usually Big-O and Big-Theta notations get confused.
A layman attempt at definition could be that Big-O means that one function is growing as fast or faster than another one, i.e. that given a large enough n, f(n)<=k*g(n) where k is some constant. That means that if f(x) = 2x^3, then it is in O(x^3), O(x^4), O(2^x), O(x!) etc..
Big-Theta means that one function is growing as fast as another one, with neither one being able to "outgrow" the other, or, k1*g(n)<=f(n)<=k2*g(n) for some k1 and k2. In programming terms that means that these two functions have the same level of complexity. If f(x) = 2x^3, then it is in Θ(x^3), as for example, if k1=1, and k2=3, 1*x^3 < 2*x^3 < 3*x^3
In my experience whenever programmers are talking about Big-O, the discussion is actually about Big-Θ, as we are concerned more with the as fast as part more, than in the no faster than part.
That said, if two functions with different Θ's are combined, as in your example, the larger one - (Θ(2^n) - swallows the smaller - Θ(n), so both f and g have the exact same Big-O and Big-Θ complexities. In this case, it's both correct that
f(n) = O(g(n)), also f(n) = Θ(g(n))
g(n) = O(f(n)), also g(n) = Θ(f(n))
so, as they have the same complexity, they are O and Θ bound by each other.