I have a string of n chars and a k length of unique substrings
I'm trying to understand the time complexity of this code:
for (int i = 0; i <= inputStr.length() - k; i++) {
String substr = inputStr.substring(i, i + k);
Set<Character> setChars = new HashSet<Character>();
for (int j = 0; j < k; j++) {
setChars.add(substr.charAt(j));
}
if (setChars.size() == num) {
set.add(substr);
}
}
If I correctly understood the time complexity might be expressed by the formula:
f((n-k+1)*k)
I believe that the worse case I can have is when k = n/2, so:
f((n-k+1)k) = nn/2 - n/2*n/2 + n/2 = 1/2*n*n - 1/4*n*n + 1/2*n =>
O(n)
You are correct until the implication.
f((n-k+1)k) = nn/2 - n/2*n/2 + n/2 = 1/2*n*n - 1/4*n*n + 1/2*n
= 1/4n*n + 1/2*n => O(n*n)
Related
I want to calculate the big O of the following algorithms for resizing binary images:
Bilinear interpolation:
double scale_x = (double)new_height/(height-1);
double scale_y = (double)new_width/(width-1);
for (int i = 0; i < new_height; i++)
{
int ii = i / scale_x;
for (int j = 0; j < new_width; j++)
{
int jj = j / scale_y;
double v00 = matrix[ii][jj], v01 = matrix[ii][jj + 1],
v10 = matrix[ii + 1][jj], v11 = matrix[ii + 1][jj + 1];
double fi = i / scale_x - ii, fj = j / scale_y - jj;
double temp = (1 - fi) * ((1 - fj) * v00 + fj * v01) +
fi * ((1 - fj) * v10 + fj * v11);
if (temp >= 0.5)
result[i][j] = 1;
else
result[i][j] = 0;
}
}
Nearest neighbour interpolation
double scale_x = (double)height/new_height;
double scale_y = (double)width/new_width;
for (int i = 0; i < new_height; i++)
{
int srcx = floor(i * scale_x);
for (int j = 0; j < new_width; j++)
{
int srcy = floor(j * scale_y);
result[i][j] = matrix[srcx][srcy];
}
}
I assumed that the complexity of both of them is the loop dimensions, i.e O(new_height*new_width). However, the bilinear interpolation surely works much slower than the nearest neighbour. Could you please explain how to correctly compute complexity?
They are both running in Theta(new_height*new_width) time because except for the loop iterations all operations are constant time.
This doesn't in any way imply that the two programs will execute equally fast. It merely means that if you increase new_height and/or new_width to infinity, the ratio of execution time between the two programs will neither go to infinity nor to zero.
(This is making the assumption that the integer types are unbounded and that all arithmetic operations are constant time operations independent of the length of the operands. Otherwise there will be another relevant factor accounting for the cost of the arithmetic.)
What is the Time Complexity of the function below? n > 0
Function fun(n){
Let count = 0;
For( I = 0; I < n; I++){
For(j = 0; j < n; j /= 2) {
For(h = 0; h < n; h /= 2) {
Count = count + 1;
}
}
}
Return count;
}
I have O(n * (n * log n² )) , but something tells me i might be wrong.
The above loop is an infinite loop. time complexity for this cannot be determined, unless the problem statement is updated properly!
Function fun(n){
Let count = 0;
For( I = 0; I < n; I++){
// will run infinitely even if you change j /= 2 to j *= 2, because initial value is 0
For(j = 0; j < n; j /= 2) {
// will run infinitely even if you change h /= 2 to h *= 2, because initial value is 0
For(h = 0; h < n; h /= 2) {
Count = count + 1;
}
}
}
Return count;
}
From an input of space-delimited words, how to concatenate consecutive words so that:
each group has a minimum length L (spaces don't count)
longest group length is minimal (spaces don't count)
Example input:
would a cat eat a mouse
Example minimum length:
L = 5
Naive algorithm that solves the first condition but not the second one:
while length of a group is less than L, concatenate next word to group
if last group is shorter than L, concatenate last two groups together
This naive algorithm produces:
group 1: would
group 2: acateat
group 3: amouse
longest group length: 7
Second condition is not solved because a better solution would be:
group 1: woulda
group 2: cateat
group 3: amouse
longest group length: 6
Which algorithm would solve the second condition (minimal longest group) with relatively fast execution as a program? (by fast, I'd like to avoid testing all possible combinations)
I know C, ObjC, Swift, Javascript, Python, but pseudocode is fine.
This can be done with dynamic programming approach. Let's count a function F(i) - the minimum length of the longest group among correct divisions of the first i words into groups.
F(0) = 0
F(i) = Min(Max(F(j), totalLen(j+1, i))), for j in [0..i-1]
Where
totalLen(i, j) = total length of words from i to j, if the length is at least L
totalLen(i, j) = MAX, if total length is less than L
The answer is the value of F(n). To get the groups themselves we can save the indices of the best j for every i.
There is a implementation from the scratch in c++:
const vector<string> words = {"would", "a", "cat", "eat", "a", "mouse"};
const int L = 5;
int n = words.size();
vector<int> prefixLen = countPrefixLen(words);
vector<int> f(n+1);
vector<int> best(n+1, -1);
int maxL = prefixLen[n];
f[0] = 0;
for (int i = 1; i <= n; ++i) {
f[i] = maxL;
for (int j = 0; j < i; ++j) {
int totalLen = prefixLen[i] - prefixLen[j];
if (totalLen >= L) {
int maxLen = max(f[j], totalLen);
if (f[i] > maxLen) {
f[i] = maxLen;
best[i] = j;
}
}
}
}
output(f[n], prev, words);
Preprocessing and output details:
vector<int> countPrefixLen(const vector<string>& words) {
int n = words.size();
vector<int> prefixLen(n+1);
for (int i = 1; i <= n; ++i) {
prefixLen[i] = prefixLen[i-1] + words[i-1].length();
}
return prefixLen;
}
void output(int answer, const vector<int>& best, const vector<string>& words) {
cout << answer << endl;
int j = best.size()-1;
vector<int> restoreIndex(1, j);
while (j > 0) {
int i = best[j];
restoreIndex.push_back(i);
j = i;
}
reverse(restoreIndex.begin(), restoreIndex.end());
for (int i = 0; i+1 < restoreIndex.size(); ++i) {
for (int j = restoreIndex[i]; j < restoreIndex[i+1]; ++j) {
cout << words[j] << ' ';
}
cout << endl;
}
}
Output:
6
would a
cat eat
a mouse
Runnable: https://ideone.com/AaV5C8
Further improvement
The complexity of this algorithm is O(N^2). If it is too slow for your data I can suggest a simple optimization:
Let's inverse the inner loop. First, this allows to get rid of the prefixLen array and it's preprocessing, because now we add words one by one to the group (actually, we could get rid of this preprocessing in the initial version, but at the expense of simplicity). What is more important we can break our loop when totalLen would be not less than already computed f[i] because further iterations will never lead to an improvement. The code of the inner loop could be changed to:
int totalLen = 0;
for (int j = i-1; j >= 0; --j) {
totalLen += words[j].length();
if (totalLen >= L) {
int maxLen = max(f[j], totalLen);
if (f[i] > maxLen) {
f[i] = maxLen;
best[i] = j;
}
}
if (totalLen >= f[i]) break;
}
This can drastically improve the performance for not very big values of L.
Give big theta bound for:
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
if (i * i < n) {
for (int j = 0; j < n; j++) {
count++;
}
}
else {
int k = i;
while (k > 0) {
count++;
k = k / 2;
}
}
}
So here's what I think..Not sure if it's right though:
The first for loop will run for n iterations. Then the for for loop within the first for loop will run for n iterations as well, giving O(n^2).
For the else statement, the while loop will run for n iterations and the k = k/ 2 will run for logn time giving O(nlogn). So then the entire thing will look like n^2 + nlogn and by taking the bigger run time, the answer would be theta n^2 ?
I would say the result is O(nlogn) because i*i is typically not smaller than n for a linear n. The else branch will dominate.
Example:
n= 10000
after i=100 the else part will be calculated instead of the inner for loop
I deduced the time complexity of bubble sort in its best case according to the mothod used in book ALGORITHMS 2.2. But the answer turned out to be O(n^2).
Here's my derivation, hope anyone can help me find out where is wrong:
public void bubbleSort(int arr[]) {
for(int i = 0, len = arr.length; i < len - 1; i++) {
for(int j = 0; j < len - i - 1; j++) {
if(arr[j + 1] < arr[j])
swap(arr, j, j + 1);
}
}
}
Statements cost times
i = 0,len = arr.length c1 1
i < len - 1 c2 n
i++ c3 n - 1
j = 0 c4 n - 1
j < len - i - 1 c5 t1(i=0) + t1(i=1) + ... + t1(i = n-2)
j++ c6 t2(i=0) + t2(i=1) + ... + t2(i = n-2)
arr[j + 1] < arr[j] c7 t3(i=0) + t3(i=1) + ... + t3(i = n-2)
swap(arr, j, j + 1) c8 t4(i=0) + t4(i=1) + ... + t4(i = n-2)
T(n) = c1 + c2n + c3(n - 1) + c4(n - 1) + c5t5 + c6t6 + c7t7 + c8t8
= c1 + c2n + c3(n - 1) + c4(n - 1) + c5[t1(i=0) + t1(i=1) + ... + t1(i = n-2)] + c6[t2(i=0) + t2(i=1) + ... + t2(i = n-2)] + c7[t3(i=0) + t3(i=1) + ... + t3(i = n-2)] + c8[t4(i=0) + t4(i=1) + ... + t4(i = n-2)];
in its best cast, the sequence is already positive before sorting. Then t8 sould be 0.
T(n) = c1 + c2n + c3(n - 1) + c4(n - 1) + c5[t1(i=0) + t1(i=1) + ... + t1(i = n-2)] + c6[t2(i=0) + t2(i=1) + ... + t2(i = n-2)] + c7[t3(i=0) + t3(i=1) + ... + t3(i = n-2)]
The time complexity is O(n^2)
Your implementation
public void bubbleSort(int arr[]) {
for(int i = 0, len = arr.length; i < len - 1; i++) {
for(int j = 0; j < len - i - 1; j++) {
if(arr[j + 1] < arr[j])
swap(arr, j, j + 1);
}
}
}
lacks the control whether there was any swap in the inner loop, and the breaking out of the outer loop if there wasn't.
That control makes it possible that the best case (an already sorted array) is O(n), since then there are no swaps in the inner loop when it runs the first time.
public void bubbleSort(int arr[]) {
boolean swapped = true;
for(int i = 0, len = arr.length; swapped && i < len - 1; i++) {
swapped = false;
for(int j = 0; j < len - i - 1; j++) {
if(arr[j + 1] < arr[j]) {
swap(arr, j, j + 1);
swapped = true;
}
}
}
}
The best case for bubble sort is when the elements are already sorted.
The usual implementation gives O(n^2) time complexity for best, average, worst case.
We can modify the bubble sort by checking if array is sorted or not(a swap would indicate an unsorted array) at every iteration.
As soon as the array is found to be sorted(if no swap occurs) control exits from loops or loop continues to execute till length-1.
And same is true for insertion sort as well!
I am not sure what are you counting. In general, when you are talking about comparison sort algorithms you should count the number of comparisons made. Bubble sort is regarded as such. In this case the algorithm you presented is O(n^2).
If you count the number of swaps its O(1) or maybe even one could say O(0). It is however rare to analyze Bubble sort like that.
You can, however very easily improve Bubble to get O(N) on best case. E.g by introducing a flag swap_was_made. If its false at the end of inner for you can finish. On best case it will cut complexity to O(N) (one inner for loop). In case of fair even distribution it cuts the expected or average complexity to O(N^2/2) ... But please double check me on it I might be wrong. Didn't do the math here.