I am confused here what is the time complexity for this ??
StringBuilder insert() has O(n) time Complexity.
I suspect the time Complexity is O(n). But I am not sure. Where n is the number of digits. Link to the question: English words.
class Solution {
public String numberToWords(int num) {
if (num == 0) return "Zero";
TreeMap<Integer,String> map =new TreeMap<>();
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
map.put(0,"Zero");
map.put(1,"One");
map.put(2,"Two");
map.put(3,"Three");
map.put(4,"Four");
map.put(5,"Five");
map.put(6,"Six");
map.put(7,"Seven");
map.put(8,"Eight");
map.put(9,"Nine");
map.put(10,"Ten");
map.put(11,"Eleven");
map.put(12,"Twelve");
map.put(13,"Thirteen");
map.put(14,"Fourteen");
map.put(15,"Fifteen");
map.put(16,"Sixteen");
map.put(17,"Seventeen");
map.put(18,"Eighteen");
map.put(19,"Nineteen");
map.put(20,"Twenty");
map.put(30,"Thirty");
map.put(40,"Forty");
map.put(50,"Fifty");
map.put(60,"Sixty");
map.put(70,"Seventy");
map.put(80, "Eighty");
map.put(90,"Ninety");
map.put(100,"Hundred");
map.put(1000 , "Thousand");
map.put(1000000,"Million");
map.put(1000000000,"Billion");
while(num >0){
int key =map.floorKey(num);
int value = num/key;
if(key<100){
sb.append(" ").append(map.get(key));
}else if(value <100 && map.containsKey(value)){
sb.append(" ").append(map.get(value)).append(" ").append(map.get(key));
}else{
sb.append(" ").append(numberToWords(value)).append(" ").append(map.get(key));
}
num =num%key;
}
return sb.toString().trim();
}
}
The complexity is O(log n).
This is because each factor of a billion is divided out of the number with constant time.
The work String Builder has to do is linear in terms of the word that needs to be added, but those word lengths are bounded by a constant, so each .append call here has a constant time complexity.
However, speaking here of time complexity feels a bit artificial, as the input is bounded by 231, and time complexity only tells us something about asymptotic behavior. If the input could be arbitrary large (and using a big integer type), then you could generate output like "five billion ten billion four hundred billion three thousand five hundred billion".
But then the thing is that the lengths of the substrings that use "billion" only once is bounded by a constant. Not sure which such substring would be the longest, but it could be something like
"seventeen million seventeen thousand seven hundred seventeen billion seventeen million seventeen thousand seven hundred seventeen".
To make it longer you would need the word "billion" again. And the number of times you will use "billion" is O(logn).
Again, this hypothetical, as the input is bounded, and even the greatest allowed input will only produce a string with one occurrence of "billion", and so we could say it is O(1). But for unbounded input and supporting data type it would be O(logn).
Related
This is written in pseudocode.
We have an Array A of length n(n>=2)
int i = 1;
while (i < n) {
if (A[i] == 0) {
terminates the while-loop;
}
doubles i
}
I am new to this whole subject and coding, so I am having a hard time grasping it and need an "Explain like im 5".
I know the code doesnt make a lot of sense but it is just an exercise, I have to determine best case and worst case.
So in the Best case Big O would be O(1) if the value in [1] is 0.
For the worst-case scenario I thought the time complexity of this loop would be O(log(n)) as i doubles.
Is that correct?
Thanks in advance!
For Big O notation you take the worse case scenario. For the case where A[i] never evaluates to zero then your loop is like this:
int i = 1;
while(i < n) {
i *= 2;
}
i is doubled on each iteration, ie exponential growth.
Given an example of n=16
the values of i would be:
1
2
4
8
wouldn't get to 16
4 iterations
and 2^4 = 16
to work out the power, you would take log to base 2 of n, ie log(16) = 4
So the worst case would be log(n)
So the complexity would be stated as O(log(n))
for(i=1;i<=n;i=i*2)
{
for(j=1;j<=i;j++)
{
}
}
How the complexity of the following code is O(nlogn) ?
Time complexity in terms of what? If you want to know how many inner loop operations the algorithm performs, it is not O(n log n). If you want to take into account also the arithmetic operations, then see further below. If you literally are to plug in that code into a programming language, chances are the compiler will notice that your code does nothing and optimise the loop away, resulting in constant O(1) time complexity. But only based on what you've given us, I would interpret it as time complexity in terms of whatever might be inside the inner loop, not counting arithmetic operations of the loops themselves. If so:
Consider an iteration of your inner loop a constant-time operation, then we just need to count how many iterations the inner loop will make.
You will find that it will make
1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ... + n
iterations, if n is a square number. If it is not square, it will stop a bit sooner, but this will be our upper limit.
We can write this more generally as
the sum of 2i where i ranges from 0 to log2n.
Now, if you do the math, e.g. using the formula for geometric sums, you will find that this sum equals
2n - 1.
So we have a time complexity of O(2n - 1) = O(n), if we don't take the arithmetic operations of the loops into account.
If you wish to verify this experimentally, the best way is to write code that counts how many times the inner loop runs. In javascript, you could write it like this:
function f(n) {
let c = 0;
for(i=1;i<=n;i=i*2) {
for(j=1;j<=i;j++) {
++c;
}
}
console.log(c);
}
f(2);
f(4);
f(32);
f(1024);
f(1 << 20);
If you do want to take the arithmetic operations into account, then it depends a bit on your assumptions but you can indeed get some logarithmic coefficients to account for. It depends on how you formulate the question and how you define an operation.
First, we need to estimate number of high-level operations executed for different n. In this case the inner loop is an operation that you want to count, if I understood the question right.
If it is difficult, you may automate it. I used Matlab for example code since there was no tag for specific language. Testing code will look like this:
% Reasonable amount of input elements placed in array, change it to fit your needs
x = 1:1:100;
% Plot linear function
plot(x,x,'DisplayName','O(n)', 'LineWidth', 2);
hold on;
% Plot n*log(n) function
plot(x, x.*log(x), 'DisplayName','O(nln(n))','LineWidth', 2);
hold on;
% Apply our function to each element of x
measured = arrayfun(#(v) test(v),x);
% Plot number of high level operations performed by our function for each element of x
plot(x,measured, 'DisplayName','Measured','LineWidth', 2);
legend
% Our function
function k = test(n)
% Counter for operations
k = 0;
% Outer loop, same as for(i=1;i<=n;i=i*2)
i = 1;
while i < n
% Inner loop
for j=1:1:i
% Count operations
k=k+1;
end
i = i*2;
end
end
And the result will look like
Our complexity is worse than linear but not worse than O(nlogn), so we choose O(nlogn) as an upper bound.
Furthermore the upper bound should be:
O(n*log2(n))
The worst case is n being in 2^x. x€real numbers
The inner loop is evaluated n times, the outer loop log2 (logarithm basis 2) times.
Could one of you kindly to tell me whether it's smaller or bigger?
Is O(N * logK) bigger than O(N)? I think it is bigger because O(NlogN) is bigger than O(N), the linear one.
Yes, it should increase, unless for some reason K is always one, in which you wouldnt put the 'logK' in O(N*logK) and it would just be O(N) which is obv equal to O(N)
Think of it this way: What is O(N) and O(N*logK) saying?
Well O(N) is saying, for example, that you have something like an array with N elements in it. For each element you are doing an operation that takes constant time, ie adding a number to that element
While O(N*logK) is saying, not only do you need to do an operation for each element, you need to do an operation that takes logK time. Its important to note that K would denote something different than N in this case, for example you could have the array from the O(N) example plus another array with K elements. Heres a code example
public void SomeNLogKOperation(int[] nElements, int[] kElements){
//for each element in nElements, ie O(N)
for(int i = 0; i < nElements.length; i++){
//do operation that takes O(logK) time, now we have O(N*logK)
int val = operationThatTakesLogKTime(nElements[i], kElements)
}
}
public void SomeNOperation(int[] nElements){
//for each element in nElements, ie O(N)
for(int i = 0; i < nElements.length; i++){
//simple operation that takes O(1) time, so we have O(N*1) = O(N)
int val = nElements[i] + 1;
}
}
I absolutely missed you used log(K) in the expression - this answer is invalid if K is not dependent on N and more, less than 1. But the you use O NlogN in the next
sentence so lets go with N log N.
So for N = 1000 O(N) is exactly that.
O(NlogN) is logN more. Usually we are looking at a base 2 log, so O(NlogN) is about 10000.
The difference is not large but very measurable.
For N = 1,000,000
You have O(N) at 1 million
O(NlogN) would sit comfortably at 20 million.
It is helpful to know your logs to common values
8-bit max 255 => log 255 = 8
10 bit max 1024 => log 1024 = 10: Conclude log 1000 is very close to 10.
16 bit 65735 => log 65735 = 16
20 bits max 1024072 = 20 bits very close to 1 million.
This question is not asked in the context of algorithmic time complexity. Only math is required here.
So we are comparing too functions. It all depends on context. What do we know of N and K? If K and N are both free variables that tend to infinity, then yes, O(N * log k) is "bigger" than O(N), in the sense that
N = O(N * log k) but
N * log k ≠ O(N).
However, if K is some constant parameter > 0, then they are the same complexity class.
On the other hand, K could be 0 or negative, in which case we obtain different relationships. So you need to define/provide more context to be able to make this comparison.
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)
I have a list of elements to be searched in a dataset of variable lengths. I have tried binary search and I found it is not always efficient when the objective is to search a list of elements.
I did the following study and conclude that if the number of elements to be searched is less than 5% of the data, binary search is efficient, other wise the Linear search is better.
Below are the details
Number of elements : 100000
Number of elements to be searched: 5000
Number of Iterations (Binary Search) =
log2 (N) x SearchCount=log2 (100000) x 5000=83048
Further increase in the number of search elements lead to more iterations than the linear search.
Any thoughts on this?
I am calling the below function only if the number elements to be searched is less than 5%.
private int SearchIndex(ref List<long> entitylist, ref long[] DataList, int i, int len, ref int listcount)
{
int Start = i;
int End = len-1;
int mid;
while (Start <= End)
{
mid = (Start + End) / 2;
long target = DataList[mid];
if (target == entitylist[listcount])
{
i = mid;
listcount++;
return i;
}
else
{
if (target < entitylist[listcount])
{
Start = mid + 1;
}
if (target > entitylist[listcount])
{
End = mid - 1;
}
}
}
listcount++;
return -1; //if the element in the list is not in the dataset
}
In the code I retun the index rather than the value because, I need to work with Index in the calling function. If i=-1, the calling function resets the value to the previous i and calls the function again with a new element to search.
In your problem you are looking for M values in an N long array, N > M, but M can be quite large.
Usually this can be approached as M independent binary searches (or even with the slight optimization of using the previous result as a starting point): you are going to O(M*log(N)).
However, using the fact that also the M values are sorted, you can find all of them in one pass, with linear search. In this case you are going to have your problem O(N). In fact this is better than O(M*log(N)) for M large.
But you have a third option: since M values are sorted, binary split M too, and every time you find it, you can limit the subsequent searches in the ranges on the left and on the right of the found index.
The first look-up is on all the N values, the second two on (average) N/2, than 4 on N/4 data,.... I think that this scale as O(log(M)*log(N)). Not sure of it, comments welcome!
However here is a test code - I have slightly modified your code, but without altering its functionality.
In case you have M=100000 and N=1000000, the "M binary search approach" takes about 1.8M iterations, that's more that the 1M needed to scan linearly the N values. But with what I suggest it takes just 272K iterations.
Even in case the M values are very "collapsed" (eg, they are consecutive), and the linear search is in the best condition (100K iterations would be enough to get all of them, see the comments in the code), the algorithm performs very well.