I'm building a model using or-tools CP tools. The values I want to find are placed in a vector X, and I want to add a constraint that says up to each position of X, the next position cannot have as a value something bigger than the maximum found until X[:i] + 1
It would be something like this:
X[i] <= (max(X[:i]) + 1)
Of course, I cannot add this as a linear constraint with a max(), and creating one extra feature for each value of X upper bound seems excessive and also I would need to minimize each one to make it the "max", otherwise those are just upper bounds that could be huge and not prune my search space (and I already have an objective function).
I already have an objective function.
I know that one trick to add for instance a min-max (min(max(x[i])) problem is to create another variable that is an upper bound of each x and minimize that one. It would be sth like this:
model = cp_model.CpModel()
lb =0; ub=0
model.NewIntVar(z, lb, ub)
for i in domain(X):
model.NewIntVar(X[i], lb, up)
model.Add(X[i] <= z)
model.Minimize(z)
In case you don't want to program this you can use the method in or-tools:
model.AddMaxEquality(z, X)
Now I want to add a constraint that at each value of X sets an upper limit which is the maximum value found until the previous x. It would be something like this:
X[i] <= max(X[:i]) + 1
I was thinking of replicating the previous idea but that would require creating a "z" for each x... not sure if that is the best approach and how much it will reduce my space of solutions. At the same time couldn't find a method in or-tools to do this.
Any suggestions, please?
PS: I already have as an objective function min(z) like it is in the example presented.
Example:
For instance, you can have as a result of the model:
[0, 1, 2, 0, 2, 3]
But you shouldn't have:
[0, 1, 1, 2, 4]
Since the max until X[:3] is 2, so the ub of X[4] should be 2 + 1.
Thanks!
I have no specific hints except:
you need to experiment. One modeling trick may work on one kind of model and not on the other
make sure to use reuse the max variable at index i - 1. With X the array of variables and M the array of max, i.e. M[i] = max(X[0], .., X[i - 1])
M[i] = max(M[i - 1], X[i - 1])
X[i] <= M[i] + 1
I am looking to write the following sum of products:
in the most efficient way in Python.
Note that f(j,i) and g(k, i) are just some functions of the indices, usually fractions of the form j^c_1/i^c_2. Furthermore, when i ==j, then the first product would have to evaluate to 1. I have though of a Kronecker delta as a workaround to this but every suggestion is welcome on how to impose such conditions.
The issue is that I would require the "limit" behaviour of this and thus, I would like to iterate for a large number of n. I have not written products before, mostly sums and I was wondering how to go ahead with this. I am more or less familiar with loops but I have read there are also other, more efficient ways of accomplishing this, e.g. iterators.
What is the best way to do this and could you please provide a working example?
My attempt so far is very basic, as I am aware of the structure of the sum/product but not how to evaluate it.
Here is what I have so far:
product_1 = 1
product_2 = 1
for i in range(a, n + 1, 1):
for j in range(a, n + 1, 1):
if i == j
something to make the product 1
else:
product_1 *= f(i,j)
for k in range(b, n + 1, 1):
product_2 *= g(i,k)
Then somehow times the products and have a summation variable somewhere?
The simple way to code this would be:
result = 0
for i in range(a, n + 1, 1):
product_1 = 1
product_2 = 1
for j in range(a, n + 1, 1):
if i != j:
product_1 *= f(i,j)
for k in range(b, n + 1, 1):
product_2 *= g(i,k)
result += product_1 * product_2
To time your code, I suggest you check this page which is a great introduction to timing in Python.
To evaluate this faster, check the map operator or, if you want to work with NumPy, the numpy.vectorize function that you could use to vectorized both f and g in this context. You could also vectorized the outer loop.
Suppose I have a recursive procedure with a formal parameter p. This procedure
wraps the recursive call in a Θ(1) (deferred) operation
and executes a Θ(g(k)) operation before that call.
k is dependent upon the value of p. [1]
The procedure calls itself with the argument p/b where b is a constant (assume it terminates at some point in the range between 1 and 0).
Question 1.
If n is the value of the argument to p in the initial call to the procedure, what are the orders of growth of the space and the number of steps executed, in terms of n, for the process this procedure generates
if k = p? [2]
if k = f(p)? [3]
Footnotes
[1] i.e., upon the value of the argument passed into p.
[2] i.e., the size of the input to the nested operation is same as that for our procedure.
[3] i.e., the size of the input to the nested operation is some function of the input size of our procedure.
Sample procedure
(define (* a b)
(cond ((= b 0) 0)
((even? b) (double (* a (halve b))))
(else (+ a (* a (- b 1))))))
This procedure performs integer multiplication as repeated additions based on the rules
a * b = double (a * (b / 2)) if b is even
a * b = a + (a * (b - 1)) if b is odd
a * b = 0 if b is zero
Pseudo-code:
define *(a, b) as
{
if (b is 0) return 0
if (b is even) return double of *(a, halve (b))
else return a + *(a, b - 1)
}
Here
the formal parameter is b.
argument to the recursive call is b/2.
double x is a Θ(1) operation like return x + x.
halve k is Θ(g(k)) with k = b i.e., it is Θ(g(b)).
Question 2.
What will be the orders of growth, in terms of n, when *(a, n) is evaluated?
Before You Answer
Please note that the primary questions are the two parts of question 1.
Question 2 can be answered as the first part. For the second part, you can assume f(p) to be any function you like: log p, p/2, p^2 etc.
I saw someone has already answered question 2, so I'll answer question 1 only.
First thing is to notice is that the two parts of the question are equivalent. In the first question, k=p so we execute a Θ(g(p)) operation for some function g. In the second one, k=f(p) and we execute a Θ(g(f(p))) = Θ((g∘f)(p)). replace g from the first question by g∘f and the second question is solved.
Thus, let's consider the first case only, i.e. k=p. Denote the time complexity of the recursive procedure by T(n) and we have that:
T(n) = T(n/b) + g(n) [The free term should be multiplied by a constant c, but we can talk about complexity in "amount of c's" and the theta bound will obviously remain the same]
The solution of the recursive formula is T(n) = g(n) + g(n/b) + ... + g(n/b^i) + ... + g(1)
We cannot further simplify it unless given additional information about g. For example, if g is a polynomial, g(n) = n^k, we get that
T(n) = n^k * (1 + b^-k + b^-2k + b^-4k + ... + b^-log(n)*k) <= n^k * (1 + b^-1 + b^-2 + ....) <= n^k * c for a constant c, thus T(n) = Θ(n^k).
But, if g(n) = log_b(n), [from now on I ommit the base of the log] we get that T(n) = log(n) + log(n/b) + ... + log(n/(b^log_b(n))) = log(n^log(n) * 1/b^(1 + 2 + ... log(n))) = log(n)^2 - log(n)^2 / 2 - log(n) / 2 = Θ(log(n) ^ 2) = Θ(g(n)^2).
You can easily prove, using a similar proof to the one where g is a polynomial that when g = Ω(n), i.e., at least linear, then the complexity is g(n). But when g is sublinear the complexity may be well bigger than g(n), as g(n/b) may be much bigger then g(n) / b.
You need to apply the wort case analysis.
First,
you can approximate the solution by using powers of two:
If then clearly the algorithm takes: (where ).
If it is an odd number then after applying -1 you get an even number and you divide by 2, you can repeat this only times, and the number of steps is also , the case of b being an odd number is clearly the worst case and this gives you the answer.
(I think you need an additional base case for: b=1)
Let's say we have a set : {1, 2, ..., n}.
How many subsets of order R exist S = {a_i1, a_i2, ...a_iR} that sum up to a certain number S?. What is the recursion for this problem?
Just define method to solve original problem. Parameters it receives are:
max number to use (n),
subset size (R),
subset sum (S),
and returns number of combinations.
To implement this method, first we have to check is it possible to make this request. It is not possible to fulfill task if:
subset size is larger than number of possible elements (R > n)
maximal possible sum is smaller than S. n + (n-1) + ... + (n-R+1) < S => R*((n-R) + (R+1)/2) < S
After that it is enough to try all possibilities for larger element that will go in subset. In python style it should be implemented like:
def combinations(n, R, S):
if R > n or R*((n-R) + (R+1)/2) < S:
return 0
c = 0
for i in xrange(R, n+1): # try i as maximal element in subset. It can go from R to n
# recursion n is i-1, since i is already used
# recursion R is R-1, since we put i in a set
# recursion S is S-i, since i is added to a set and we are looking for sum without it
c += combinations(i-1, R-1, S-i)
return c
I understand Big-O notation, but I don't know how to calculate it for many functions. In particular, I've been trying to figure out the computational complexity of the naive version of the Fibonacci sequence:
int Fibonacci(int n)
{
if (n <= 1)
return n;
else
return Fibonacci(n - 1) + Fibonacci(n - 2);
}
What is the computational complexity of the Fibonacci sequence and how is it calculated?
You model the time function to calculate Fib(n) as sum of time to calculate Fib(n-1) plus the time to calculate Fib(n-2) plus the time to add them together (O(1)). This is assuming that repeated evaluations of the same Fib(n) take the same time - i.e. no memoization is used.
T(n<=1) = O(1)
T(n) = T(n-1) + T(n-2) + O(1)
You solve this recurrence relation (using generating functions, for instance) and you'll end up with the answer.
Alternatively, you can draw the recursion tree, which will have depth n and intuitively figure out that this function is asymptotically O(2n). You can then prove your conjecture by induction.
Base: n = 1 is obvious
Assume T(n-1) = O(2n-1), therefore
T(n) = T(n-1) + T(n-2) + O(1) which is equal to
T(n) = O(2n-1) + O(2n-2) + O(1) = O(2n)
However, as noted in a comment, this is not the tight bound. An interesting fact about this function is that the T(n) is asymptotically the same as the value of Fib(n) since both are defined as
f(n) = f(n-1) + f(n-2).
The leaves of the recursion tree will always return 1. The value of Fib(n) is sum of all values returned by the leaves in the recursion tree which is equal to the count of leaves. Since each leaf will take O(1) to compute, T(n) is equal to Fib(n) x O(1). Consequently, the tight bound for this function is the Fibonacci sequence itself (~θ(1.6n)). You can find out this tight bound by using generating functions as I'd mentioned above.
Just ask yourself how many statements need to execute for F(n) to complete.
For F(1), the answer is 1 (the first part of the conditional).
For F(n), the answer is F(n-1) + F(n-2).
So what function satisfies these rules? Try an (a > 1):
an == a(n-1) + a(n-2)
Divide through by a(n-2):
a2 == a + 1
Solve for a and you get (1+sqrt(5))/2 = 1.6180339887, otherwise known as the golden ratio.
So it takes exponential time.
I agree with pgaur and rickerbh, recursive-fibonacci's complexity is O(2^n).
I came to the same conclusion by a rather simplistic but I believe still valid reasoning.
First, it's all about figuring out how many times recursive fibonacci function ( F() from now on ) gets called when calculating the Nth fibonacci number. If it gets called once per number in the sequence 0 to n, then we have O(n), if it gets called n times for each number, then we get O(n*n), or O(n^2), and so on.
So, when F() is called for a number n, the number of times F() is called for a given number between 0 and n-1 grows as we approach 0.
As a first impression, it seems to me that if we put it in a visual way, drawing a unit per time F() is called for a given number, wet get a sort of pyramid shape (that is, if we center units horizontally). Something like this:
n *
n-1 **
n-2 ****
...
2 ***********
1 ******************
0 ***************************
Now, the question is, how fast is the base of this pyramid enlarging as n grows?
Let's take a real case, for instance F(6)
F(6) * <-- only once
F(5) * <-- only once too
F(4) **
F(3) ****
F(2) ********
F(1) **************** <-- 16
F(0) ******************************** <-- 32
We see F(0) gets called 32 times, which is 2^5, which for this sample case is 2^(n-1).
Now, we want to know how many times F(x) gets called at all, and we can see the number of times F(0) is called is only a part of that.
If we mentally move all the *'s from F(6) to F(2) lines into F(1) line, we see that F(1) and F(0) lines are now equal in length. Which means, total times F() gets called when n=6 is 2x32=64=2^6.
Now, in terms of complexity:
O( F(6) ) = O(2^6)
O( F(n) ) = O(2^n)
There's a very nice discussion of this specific problem over at MIT. On page 5, they make the point that, if you assume that an addition takes one computational unit, the time required to compute Fib(N) is very closely related to the result of Fib(N).
As a result, you can skip directly to the very close approximation of the Fibonacci series:
Fib(N) = (1/sqrt(5)) * 1.618^(N+1) (approximately)
and say, therefore, that the worst case performance of the naive algorithm is
O((1/sqrt(5)) * 1.618^(N+1)) = O(1.618^(N+1))
PS: There is a discussion of the closed form expression of the Nth Fibonacci number over at Wikipedia if you'd like more information.
You can expand it and have a visulization
T(n) = T(n-1) + T(n-2) <
T(n-1) + T(n-1)
= 2*T(n-1)
= 2*2*T(n-2)
= 2*2*2*T(n-3)
....
= 2^i*T(n-i)
...
==> O(2^n)
Recursive algorithm's time complexity can be better estimated by drawing recursion tree, In this case the recurrence relation for drawing recursion tree would be T(n)=T(n-1)+T(n-2)+O(1)
note that each step takes O(1) meaning constant time,since it does only one comparison to check value of n in if block.Recursion tree would look like
n
(n-1) (n-2)
(n-2)(n-3) (n-3)(n-4) ...so on
Here lets say each level of above tree is denoted by i
hence,
i
0 n
1 (n-1) (n-2)
2 (n-2) (n-3) (n-3) (n-4)
3 (n-3)(n-4) (n-4)(n-5) (n-4)(n-5) (n-5)(n-6)
lets say at particular value of i, the tree ends, that case would be when n-i=1, hence i=n-1, meaning that the height of the tree is n-1.
Now lets see how much work is done for each of n layers in tree.Note that each step takes O(1) time as stated in recurrence relation.
2^0=1 n
2^1=2 (n-1) (n-2)
2^2=4 (n-2) (n-3) (n-3) (n-4)
2^3=8 (n-3)(n-4) (n-4)(n-5) (n-4)(n-5) (n-5)(n-6) ..so on
2^i for ith level
since i=n-1 is height of the tree work done at each level will be
i work
1 2^1
2 2^2
3 2^3..so on
Hence total work done will sum of work done at each level, hence it will be 2^0+2^1+2^2+2^3...+2^(n-1) since i=n-1.
By geometric series this sum is 2^n, Hence total time complexity here is O(2^n)
The proof answers are good, but I always have to do a few iterations by hand to really convince myself. So I drew out a small calling tree on my whiteboard, and started counting the nodes. I split my counts out into total nodes, leaf nodes, and interior nodes. Here's what I got:
IN | OUT | TOT | LEAF | INT
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0
2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0
3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1
4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 2
5 | 5 | 9 | 5 | 4
6 | 8 | 15 | 8 | 7
7 | 13 | 25 | 13 | 12
8 | 21 | 41 | 21 | 20
9 | 34 | 67 | 34 | 33
10 | 55 | 109 | 55 | 54
What immediately leaps out is that the number of leaf nodes is fib(n). What took a few more iterations to notice is that the number of interior nodes is fib(n) - 1. Therefore the total number of nodes is 2 * fib(n) - 1.
Since you drop the coefficients when classifying computational complexity, the final answer is θ(fib(n)).
It is bounded on the lower end by 2^(n/2) and on the upper end by 2^n (as noted in other comments). And an interesting fact of that recursive implementation is that it has a tight asymptotic bound of Fib(n) itself. These facts can be summarized:
T(n) = Ω(2^(n/2)) (lower bound)
T(n) = O(2^n) (upper bound)
T(n) = Θ(Fib(n)) (tight bound)
The tight bound can be reduced further using its closed form if you like.
It is simple to calculate by diagramming function calls. Simply add the function calls for each value of n and look at how the number grows.
The Big O is O(Z^n) where Z is the golden ratio or about 1.62.
Both the Leonardo numbers and the Fibonacci numbers approach this ratio as we increase n.
Unlike other Big O questions there is no variability in the input and both the algorithm and implementation of the algorithm are clearly defined.
There is no need for a bunch of complex math. Simply diagram out the function calls below and fit a function to the numbers.
Or if you are familiar with the golden ratio you will recognize it as such.
This answer is more correct than the accepted answer which claims that it will approach f(n) = 2^n. It never will. It will approach f(n) = golden_ratio^n.
2 (2 -> 1, 0)
4 (3 -> 2, 1) (2 -> 1, 0)
8 (4 -> 3, 2) (3 -> 2, 1) (2 -> 1, 0)
(2 -> 1, 0)
14 (5 -> 4, 3) (4 -> 3, 2) (3 -> 2, 1) (2 -> 1, 0)
(2 -> 1, 0)
(3 -> 2, 1) (2 -> 1, 0)
22 (6 -> 5, 4)
(5 -> 4, 3) (4 -> 3, 2) (3 -> 2, 1) (2 -> 1, 0)
(2 -> 1, 0)
(3 -> 2, 1) (2 -> 1, 0)
(4 -> 3, 2) (3 -> 2, 1) (2 -> 1, 0)
(2 -> 1, 0)
The naive recursion version of Fibonacci is exponential by design due to repetition in the computation:
At the root you are computing:
F(n) depends on F(n-1) and F(n-2)
F(n-1) depends on F(n-2) again and F(n-3)
F(n-2) depends on F(n-3) again and F(n-4)
then you are having at each level 2 recursive calls that are wasting a lot of data in the calculation, the time function will look like this:
T(n) = T(n-1) + T(n-2) + C, with C constant
T(n-1) = T(n-2) + T(n-3) > T(n-2) then
T(n) > 2*T(n-2)
...
T(n) > 2^(n/2) * T(1) = O(2^(n/2))
This is just a lower bound that for the purpose of your analysis should be enough but the real time function is a factor of a constant by the same Fibonacci formula and the closed form is known to be exponential of the golden ratio.
In addition, you can find optimized versions of Fibonacci using dynamic programming like this:
static int fib(int n)
{
/* memory */
int f[] = new int[n+1];
int i;
/* Init */
f[0] = 0;
f[1] = 1;
/* Fill */
for (i = 2; i <= n; i++)
{
f[i] = f[i-1] + f[i-2];
}
return f[n];
}
That is optimized and do only n steps but is also exponential.
Cost functions are defined from Input size to the number of steps to solve the problem. When you see the dynamic version of Fibonacci (n steps to compute the table) or the easiest algorithm to know if a number is prime (sqrt(n) to analyze the valid divisors of the number). you may think that these algorithms are O(n) or O(sqrt(n)) but this is simply not true for the following reason:
The input to your algorithm is a number: n, using the binary notation the input size for an integer n is log2(n) then doing a variable change of
m = log2(n) // your real input size
let find out the number of steps as a function of the input size
m = log2(n)
2^m = 2^log2(n) = n
then the cost of your algorithm as a function of the input size is:
T(m) = n steps = 2^m steps
and this is why the cost is an exponential.
Well, according to me to it is O(2^n) as in this function only recursion is taking the considerable time (divide and conquer). We see that, the above function will continue in a tree until the leaves are approaches when we reach to the level F(n-(n-1)) i.e. F(1). So, here when we jot down the time complexity encountered at each depth of tree, the summation series is:
1+2+4+.......(n-1)
= 1((2^n)-1)/(2-1)
=2^n -1
that is order of 2^n [ O(2^n) ].
No answer emphasizes probably the fastest and most memory efficient way to calculate the sequence. There is a closed form exact expression for the Fibonacci sequence. It can be found by using generating functions or by using linear algebra as I will now do.
Let f_1,f_2, ... be the Fibonacci sequence with f_1 = f_2 = 1. Now consider a sequence of two dimensional vectors
f_1 , f_2 , f_3 , ...
f_2 , f_3 , f_4 , ...
Observe that the next element v_{n+1} in the vector sequence is M.v_{n} where M is a 2x2 matrix given by
M = [0 1]
[1 1]
due to f_{n+1} = f_{n+1} and f_{n+2} = f_{n} + f_{n+1}
M is diagonalizable over complex numbers (in fact diagonalizable over the reals as well, but this is not usually the case). There are two distinct eigenvectors of M given by
1 1
x_1 x_2
where x_1 = (1+sqrt(5))/2 and x_2 = (1-sqrt(5))/2 are the distinct solutions to the polynomial equation x*x-x-1 = 0. The corresponding eigenvalues are x_1 and x_2. Think of M as a linear transformation and change your basis to see that it is equivalent to
D = [x_1 0]
[0 x_2]
In order to find f_n find v_n and look at the first coordinate. To find v_n apply M n-1 times to v_1. But applying M n-1 times is easy, just think of it as D. Then using linearity one can find
f_n = 1/sqrt(5)*(x_1^n-x_2^n)
Since the norm of x_2 is smaller than 1, the corresponding term vanishes as n tends to infinity; therefore, obtaining the greatest integer smaller than (x_1^n)/sqrt(5) is enough to find the answer exactly. By making use of the trick of repeatedly squaring, this can be done using only O(log_2(n)) multiplication (and addition) operations. Memory complexity is even more impressive because it can be implemented in a way that you always need to hold at most 1 number in memory whose value is smaller than the answer. However, since this number is not a natural number, memory complexity here changes depending on whether if you use fixed bits to represent each number (hence do calculations with error)(O(1) memory complexity this case) or use a better model like Turing machines, in which case some more analysis is needed.