For example, the analogous two dimensional question, x + y = 2n is easy to solve: one can simply consider pairs (i,2n-i) for i=1,2,...,n and thus index every solution, exactly once. We note that we have n such pairs solving x + y = 2n, for every fixed value of positive integer n, and so the cardinality of such a set is equal to n as expected.
However, trying to repeat the same problem for x + y + z = 2n, it is not clear to me how (or if it is possible) to write down a minimal set {(2n-i-j,i,j)} such that varying i and j over particular intervals precisely produces every such triplet, exactly once. It can be shown that the number of elements in such a minimal set would be equal to the nearest integer to n^2/3.
It is not hard to see how one can obtain such an indexing with repetitions, or how one can algorithmically remove repetitions, but what I would like to know is whether there is a clean, general construction, as for the x + y = 2n case. Is this possible, or will one always have to artificially restrict certain values of the parameters on the intervals for which they are defined?
Related
I have an integer, N.
I denote f[i] = number of appearances of the digit i in N.
Now, I have the following algorithm.
FOR i = 0 TO 9
FOR j = 1 TO f[i]
k = k*10 + i;
My teacher said this is O(N). It seems to me more like a O(logN) algorithm.
Am I missing something?
I think that you and your teacher are saying the same thing but it gets confused because the integer you are using is named N but it is also common to refer to an algorithm that is linear in the size of its input as O(N). N is getting overloaded as the specific name and the generic figure of speech.
Suppose we say instead that your number is Z and its digits are counted in the array d and then their frequencies are in f. For example, we could have:
Z = 12321
d = [1,2,3,2,1]
f = [0,2,2,1,0,0,0,0,0,0]
Then the cost of going through all the digits in d and computing the count for each will be O( size(d) ) = O( log (Z) ). This is basically what your second loop is doing in reverse, it's executing one time for each occurence of each digits. So you are right that there is something logarithmic going on here -- the number of digits of Z is logarithmic in the size of Z. But your teacher is also right that there is something linear going on here -- counting those digits is linear in the number of digits.
The time complexity of an algorithm is generally measured as a function of the input size. Your algorithm doesn't take N as an input; the input seems to be the array f. There is another variable named k which your code doesn't declare, but I assume that's an oversight and you meant to initialise e.g. k = 0 before the first loop, so that k is not an input to the algorithm.
The outer loop runs 10 times, and the inner loop runs f[i] times for each i. Therefore the total number of iterations of the inner loop equals the sum of the numbers in the array f. So the complexity could be written as O(sum(f)) or O(Σf) where Σ is the mathematical symbol for summation.
Since you defined that N is an integer which f counts the digits of, it is in fact possible to prove that O(Σf) is the same thing as O(log N), so long as N must be a positive integer. This is because Σf equals how many digits the number N has, which is approximately (log N) / (log 10). So by your definition of N, you are correct.
My guess is that your teacher disagrees with you because they think N means something else. If your teacher defines N = Σf then the complexity would be O(N). Or perhaps your teacher made a genuine mistake; that is not impossible. But the first thing to do is make sure you agree on the meaning of N.
I find your explanation a bit confusing, but lets assume N = 9075936782959 is an integer. Then O(N) doesn't really make sense. O(length of N) makes more sense. I'll use n for the length of N.
Then f(i) = iterate over each number in N and sum to find how many times i is in N, that makes O(f(i)) = n (it's linear). I'm assuming f(i) is a function, not an array.
Your algorithm loops at most:
10 times (first loop)
0 to n times, but the total is n (the sum of f(i) for all digits must be n)
It's tempting to say that algorithm is then O(algo) = 10 + n*f(i) = n^2 (removing the constant), but f(i) is only calculated 10 times, each time the second loops is entered, so O(algo) = 10 + n + 10*f(i) = 10 + 11n = n. If f(i) is an array, it's constant time.
I'm sure I didn't see the problem the same way as you. I'm still a little confused about the definition in your question. How did you come up with log(n)?
I am trying to rank these functions — 2n, n100, (n + 1)2, n·lg(n), 100n, n!, lg(n), and n99 + n98 — so that each function is the big-O of the next function, but I do not know a method of determining if one function is the big-O of another. I'd really appreciate if someone could explain how I would go about doing this.
Assuming you have some programming background. Say you have below code:
void SomeMethod(int x)
{
for(int i = 0; i< x; i++)
{
// Do Some Work
}
}
Notice that the loop runs for x iterations. Generalizing, we say that you will get the solution after N iterations (where N will be the value of x ex: number of items in array/input etc).
so This type of implementation/algorithm is said to have Time Complexity of Order of N written as O(n)
Similarly, a Nested For (2 Loops) is O(n-squared) => O(n^2)
If you have Binary decisions made and you reduce possibilities into halves and pick only one half for solution. Then complexity is O(log n)
Found this link to be interesting.
For: Himanshu
While the Link explains how log(base2)N complexity comes into picture very well, Lets me put the same in my words.
Suppose you have a Pre-Sorted List like:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
Now, you have been asked to Find whether 10 exists in the list. The first solution that comes to mind is Loop through the list and Find it. Which means O(n). Can it be made better?
Approach 1:
As we know that List of already sorted in ascending order So:
Break list at center (say at 5).
Compare the value of Center (5) with the Search Value (10).
If Center Value == Search Value => Item Found
If Center < Search Value => Do above steps for Right Half of the List
If Center > Search Value => Do above steps for Left Half of the List
For this simple example we will find 10 after doing 3 or 4 breaks (at: 5 then 8 then 9) (depending on how you implement)
That means For N = 10 Items - Search time was 3 (or 4). Putting some mathematics over here;
2^3 + 2 = 10 for simplicity sake lets say
2^3 = 10 (nearly equals --- this is just to do simple Logarithms base 2)
This can be re-written as:
Log-Base-2 10 = 3 (again nearly)
We know 10 was number of items & 3 was the number of breaks/lookup we had to do to find item. It Becomes
log N = K
That is the Complexity of the alogorithm above. O(log N)
Generally when a loop is nested we multiply the values as O(outerloop max value * innerloop max value) n so on. egfor (i to n){ for(j to k){}} here meaning if youll say for i=1 j=1 to k i.e. 1 * k next i=2,j=1 to k so i.e. the O(max(i)*max(j)) implies O(n*k).. Further, if you want to find order you need to recall basic operations with logarithmic usage like O(n+n(addition)) <O(n*n(multiplication)) for log it minimizes the value in it saying O(log n) <O(n) <O(n+n(addition)) <O(n*n(multiplication)) and so on. By this way you can acheive with other functions as well.
Approach should be better first generalised the equation for calculating time complexity. liken! =n*(n-1)*(n-2)*..n-(n-1)so somewhere O(nk) would be generalised formated worst case complexity like this way you can compare if k=2 then O(nk) =O(n*n)
Suppose we have an algorithm that is of order O(2^n). Furthermore, suppose we multiplied the input size n by 2 so now we have an input of size 2n. How is the time affected? Do we look at the problem as if the original time was 2^n and now it became 2^(2n) so the answer would be that the new time is the power of 2 of the previous time?
Big 0 is not for telling you the actual running time, just how the running time is affected by the size of input. If you double the size of input the complexity is still O(2^n), n is just bigger.
number of elements(n) units of work
1 1
2 4
3 8
4 16
5 32
... ...
10 1024
20 1048576
There's a misunderstanding here about how Big-O relates to execution time.
Consider the following formulas which define execution time:
f1(n) = 2^n + 5000n^2 + 12300
f2(n) = (500 * 2^n) + 6
f3(n) = 500n^2 + 25000n + 456000
f4(n) = 400000000
Each of these functions are O(2^n); that is, they can each be shown to be less than M * 2^n for an arbitrary M and starting n0 value. But obviously, the change in execution time you notice for doubling the size from n1 to 2 * n1 will vary wildly between them (not at all in the case of f4(n)). You cannot use Big-O analysis to determine effects on execution time. It only defines an upper boundary on the execution time (which is not even guaranteed to be the minimum form of the upper bound).
Some related academia below:
There are three notable bounding functions in this category:
O(f(n)): Big-O - This defines a upper-bound.
Ω(f(n)): Big-Omega - This defines a lower-bound.
Θ(f(n)): Big-Theta - This defines a tight-bound.
A given time function f(n) is Θ(g(n)) only if it is also Ω(g(n)) and O(g(n)) (that is, both upper and lower bounded).
You are dealing with Big-O, which is the usual "entry point" to the discussion; we will neglect the other two entirely.
Consider the definition from 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 tends to infinity
if and only if there is a positive constant M such that for all sufficiently large values of x, the absolute value of f(x) is at most M multiplied by the absolute value of g(x). That is, f(x) = O(g(x)) if and only if there exists a positive real number M and a real number x0 such that
|f(x)| <= M|g(x)| for all x > x0
Going from here, assume we have f1(n) = 2^n. If we were to compare that to f2(n) = 2^(2n) = 4^n, how would f1(n) and f2(n) relate to each other in Big-O terms?
Is 2^n <= M * 4^n for some arbitrary M and n0 value? Of course! Using M = 1 and n0 = 1, it is true. Thus, 2^n is upper-bounded by O(4^n).
Is 4^n <= M * 2^n for some arbitrary M and n0 value? This is where you run into problems... for no constant value of M can you make 2^n grow faster than 4^n as n gets arbitrarily large. Thus, 4^n is not upper-bounded by O(2^n).
See comments for further explanations, but indeed, this is just an example I came up with to help you grasp Big-O concept. That is not the actual algorithmic meaning.
Suppose you have an array, arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].
An example of a O(1) operation would be directly access an index, such as arr[0] or arr[2].
An example of a O(n) operation would be a loop that could iterate through all your array, such as for elem in arr:.
n would be the size of your array. If your array is twice as big as the original array, n would also be twice as big. That's how variables work.
See Big-O Cheat Sheet for complementary informations.
I'm sorry the title is so confusingly worded, but it's hard to condense this problem down to a few words.
I'm trying to find the minimum value of a specific equation. At first I'm looping through the equation, which for our purposes here can be something like y = .245x^3-.67x^2+5x+12. I want to design a loop where the "steps" through the loop get smaller and smaller.
For example, the first time it loops through, it uses a step of 1. I will get about 30 values. What I need help on is how do I Use the three smallest values I receive from this first loop?
Here's an example of the values I might get from the first loop: (I should note this isn't supposed to be actual code at all. It's just a brief description of what's happening)
loop from x = 1 to 8 with step 1
results:
x = 1 -> y = 30
x = 2 -> y = 28
x = 3 -> y = 25
x = 4 -> y = 21
x = 5 -> y = 18
x = 6 -> y = 22
x = 7 -> y = 27
x = 8 -> y = 33
I want something that can detect the lowest three values and create a loop. From theses results, the values of x that get the smallest three results for y are x = 4, 5, and 6.
So my "guess" at this point would be x = 5. To get a better "guess" I'd like a loop that now does:
loop from x = 4 to x = 6 with step .5
I could keep this pattern going until I get an absurdly accurate guess for the minimum value of x.
Does anybody know of a way I can do this? I know the values I'm going to get are going to be able to be modeled by a parabola opening up, so this format will definitely work. I was thinking that the values could be put into a column. It wouldn't be hard to make something that returns the smallest value for y in that column, and the corresponding x-value.
If I'm being too vague, just let me know, and I can answer any questions you might have.
nice question. Here's at least a start for what I think you should do for this:
Sub findMin()
Dim lowest As Integer
Dim middle As Integer
Dim highest As Integer
lowest = 999
middle = 999
hightest = 999
Dim i As Integer
i = 1
Do While i < 9
If (retVal(i) < retVal(lowest)) Then
highest = middle
middle = lowest
lowest = i
Else
If (retVal(i) < retVal(middle)) Then
highest = middle
middle = i
Else
If (retVal(i) < retVal(highest)) Then
highest = i
End If
End If
End If
i = i + 1
Loop
End Sub
Function retVal(num As Integer) As Double
retVal = 0.245 * Math.Sqr(num) * num - 0.67 * Math.Sqr(num) + 5 * num + 12
End Function
What I've done here is set three Integers as your three Min values: lowest, middle, and highest. You loop through the values you're plugging into the formula (here, the retVal function) and comparing the return value of retVal (hence the name) to the values of retVal(lowest), retVal(middle), and retVal(highest), replacing them as necessary. I'm just beginning with VBA so what I've done likely isn't very elegant, but it does at least identify the Integers that result in the lowest values of the function. You may have to play around with the values of lowest, middle, and highest a bit to make it work. I know this isn't EXACTLY what you're looking for, but it's something along the lines of what I think you should do.
There is no trivial way to approach this unless the problem domain is narrowed.
The example polynomial given in fact has no minimum, which is readily determined by observing y'>0 (hence, y is always increasing WRT x).
Given the wide interpretation of
[an] equation, which for our purposes here can be something like y =
.245x^3-.67x^2+5x+12
many conditions need to be checked, even assuming the domain is limited to polynomials.
The polynomial order is significant, and the order determines what conditions are necessary to check for how many solutions are possible, or whether any solution is possible at all.
Without taking this complexity into account, an iterative approach could yield an incorrect solution due to underflow error, or an unfortunate choice of iteration steps or bounds.
I'm not trying to be hard here, I think your idea is neat. In practice it is more complicated than you think.
I just wanted to make sure I'm going in the right direction. I want to find a max value of an array by recursively splitting it and find the max of each separate array. Because I am splitting it, it would be 2*T(n/2). And because I have to make a comparison at the end for the 2 arrays, I have T(1).
So would my recurrence relation be like this:
T = { 2*T(n/2) + 1, when n>=2 ;T(1), when n = 1;
and and therefore my complexity would be Theta(nlgn)?
The formula you composed seems about right, but your analysis isn't perfect.
T = 2*T(n/2) + 1 = 2*(2*T(n/4) + 1) + 1 = ...
For the i-th iteration you'll get:
Ti(n) = 2^i*T(n/2^i) + i
now what you want to know for which i does n/2^i equals 1 (or just about any constant, if you like) so you reach the end-condition of n=1.
That would be the solution to n/2^I = 1 -> I = Log2(n). Plant it in the equation for Ti and you get:
TI(n) = 2^log2(n)*T(n/2^log2(n)) + log2(n) = n*1+log2(n) = n + log2(n)
and you get T(n) = O(n + log2(n) (just like #bdares said) = O(n) (just like #bdares said)
No, no... you are taking O(1) time for each recursion.
How many are there?
There are N leaves, so you know it's at least O(N).
How many do you need to compare to find the absolute maximum? That's O(log(N)).
Add them together, don't multiply. O(N+log(N)) is your time complexity.