Got this question on a test that I've been stuck on for a few days regarding Big O time complexity analysis:
Below is the C code:
if ( A > B ) {
for ( i=0; i<n^2/100; i++ ){ //1
for ( j=n^2; j>i; j-- ){ //2
A += B;}}
}
else {
for ( i=0; i<2n; i++ ){ //3
for ( j=3n; j>i; j-- ){ //4
A += B;}}
}
My first instinct was that this algorithm would have a big O of O(n2) with the nested for loops and such but it wasn't a multiple choice answer. Tried to count each loop iteration manually but having trouble accounting for the changing i in each inside loop (2 and 4). Also having trouble trying to write it as a summation.
Consider the first case where A > B. The inner loop executes a number of iterations equal to n^2 - i for each value of i iterated over by the outer loop. Consider n = 2 and i = 1. n^2 = 4 and the inner loop iterates over j = 4, j = 3, j = 2, three iterations, consistent with our finding.
The total number of iterations of the inner loop is therefore the sum of all n^2 - i where i varies from 0 to floor(n^2/100) - 1. Let us define k := floor(n^2/100) - 1. Then this sum is equal to kn^2 - k(k+1)/2. Substituting the expression for which k stands we recover [floor(n^2/100) - 1]n^2 - [floor(n^2/100) - 1][floor(n^2/100)]/2. This is no greater than (n^2/100 - 1)n^2 - (n^2/100 - 1)(n^2/100)/2. We may multiply through to get n^4/100 - n^2 - n^4/20000 + n^2/200 = n^4(1/100 - 1/20000) - n^2(1 - 1/200). From this we can see that the time complexity of the first case is O(n^4). Indeed, it is also Omega(n^4) and Theta(n^4).
In the case where A <= B, the analysis is similar. It is easy to show that the time complexity of the second case is O(n^2), Omega(n^2) and thus Theta(n^2).
Therefore, we may confidently say that:
The worst-case time complexity is O(n^4);
The best-case time complexity is Omega(n^2);
Each of these bounds may actually be given as Theta bounds instead.
Related
When looking at this code for example :
for (int i = 1; i < n; i*=2)
for (int j = 0; j < i; j +=2)
{
// some contstant time operations
}
Is it as simple as saying that because the outer loop is log and and inner loop is n , that combined the result is big(O) of nlogn ?
Here is the analysis of the example in the question. For simplicity I will neglect the increment of 2 in the inner loop and will consider it as 1, because in terms of complexity it does not matter - the inner loop is linear in i and the constant factor of 2 does not matter.
So we can notice, that the outer loop is producing is of values which are powers of 2 capped by n, that is:
1, 2, 4, 8, ... , 2^(log2 n)
these numbers are also the numbers that the "constant time operation" in the inner loop is running for each i.
So all we have to do is to sum up the above series. It is easy to see that these are geometric series:
2^0 + 2^1 + 2^2 + ... + 2^(log2 n)
and it has a well known solution:
(from Wiki )
We have a=1, r=2, and... well n_from_the_image =log n. We have a same name for different variables here, so it is a bit of a problem.
Now let's substitute and get that the sum equals
(1-2^((log2 n) + 1) / (1 - 2) = (1 - 2*n) / (1-2) = 2n-1
Which is a linear O(n) complexity.
Generally, we take the O time complexity to be the number of times the innermost loop is executed (and here we assume the innermost loop consists of statements of O(1) time complexity).
Consider your example. The first loop executes O(log N) times, and the second innermost loop executes O(N) times. If something O(N) is being executed O(log N) times, then yes, the final time complexity is just them multiplied: O(N log N).
Generally, this holds true with most nested loops: you can assume their big-O time complexity to be the time complexity of each loop, multiplied.
However, there are exceptions to this rule when you can consider the break statement. If the loop has the possibility of breaking out early, the time complexity will be different.
Take a look at this example I just came up with:
for(int i = 1; i <= n; ++i) {
int x = i;
while(true) {
x = x/2;
if(x == 0) break;
}
}
Well, the innermost loop is O(infinity), so can we say that the total time complexity is O(N) * O(infinity) = O(infinity)? No. In this case we know the innermost loop will always break in O(log N), giving a total O(N log N) time complexity.
I have a question that needs answer before an exam I'm supposed to have this week.
i = 1;
while (i <= n)
{
for (j = 1; j < i; j++)
printf("*");
j *= 2;
i *= 3;
}
I have those dependent loops, I calculated the outer loop's big O to be O(logn).
The inner loop goes from 1 to i - 1 for every iteration of the outer loop,
the problem I'm having with this is that I do not know how calculate the inner loop's time complexity, and then the overall complexity (I'm used to just multiplying both complexities but I'm not sure about this one)
Thanks a lot!
P.S: I know that the j *= 2 doesn't affect the for loop.
As you recognized, computing the complexity of a loop nest where the bounds of an inner loop vary for different iterations of the outer loop is not as easy a simple multiplication of two iteration counts. You need to look more deeply to get the tightest possible bound.
The question can be taken to be asking about how many times the body of the inner loop is executed, as a function of n. On the first outer-loop iteration, i is 1, so j is never less than i, so there are no inner-loop iterations. Next, i is 3, so there are two inner-loop iterations, then eight the next time, then 26 ... in short, 3i-1 - 1 inner-loop iterations. You need to add those all up to compute the overall complexity.
Well, that sum is Σi = 1, floor(log n) (3i-1 - 1), so you could say that the complexity of the loop nest is
O(Σi = 1, floor(log n) (3i-1 - 1))
, but such an answer is unlikely to get you full marks.
We can simplify that by observing that our sum is bounded by a related one:
= O(Σi = 1, floor(log n) (3i-1))
. At this point (if not sooner) it would be useful to recognize the sum of powers pattern therein. It is often useful to know that 20 + 21 + ... 2k - 1 = 2k - 1. This is closely related to base-2 numeric representations, and a similar formula can be written for any other natural number base. For example, for base 3, it is 2 * 30 + 2 * 31 + ... 2 * 3k - 1 = 3k - 1. This might be enough for you to intuit the answer: that the total number of inner-loop iterations is bounded by a constant multiple of the number of inner-loop iterations on the last iteration of the outer loop, which in turn is bounded by n.
But if you want to prove it, then you can observe that the sum in the previous bound expression is itself bounded by a related definite integral:
= O(∫0log n 3i di)
... and that has a closed-form solution:
= O((3log n - 30) / log 3)
, which clearly has a simpler bound itself
= O(3log n)
. Exponentials of logarithms reduce to linear functions of the logarithm argument. Since we need only an asymptotic bound, we don't care about the details, and thus we can go straight to
= O(n)
How is this loop's time complexity O(n^2)?
for (int i = n; i > 0; i -= c)
{
for (int j = i+1; j <=n; j += c)
{
// some O(1) expressions
}
}
Can anyone explain?
Assumption
n > 0
c > 0
First loop
The first loop start with i=n and at each step, it substracts c from i. On one hand, if c is big, then the first loop will be iterated only a few times. (Try with n=50, c=20, you will see). On the other hand, if c is small (let say c=1), then it will iterate n times.
Second loop
The second loop is the same reasoning. If c is big, then it will be iterated only a few times, if c is small, many times and at the worst case n times.
Combined / Big O
Big O notation gives you the upper bound for time complexity of an algorithm. In your case, first and second loop upper bound combined, it gives you a O(n*n)=O(n^2).
Find the time complexity of following code.
Answer given is O(log(n)*n^1/2), but I am not getting it.
I want someone to explain this.
i=n;
while(i>0)
{
k=1;
for(j=1;j<=n;j+=k)
k++;
i=i/2;
}
Take this code segment:
k=1;
for(j=1;j<=n;j+=k)
k++;
The values of j over various iterations will be 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, ....
Note that these numbers have closed form (m+1)(m+2)/2, where m is the number of iterations that have gone by. If we want to know how many iterations this loop will run for, we need to solve (m+1)(m+2)/2 = n, which has solution m = (sqrt(8n + 1) - 3))/2 = O(sqrt(n)). So this loop will run O(sqrt(n)) times.
The outer loop will run O(log(n)) times (this is rather easy to see). So overall, we have O(log(n)sqrt(n)).
edit: Or perhaps easier than solving (m+1)(m+2)/2 = n directly would simply be to note that (m+1)(m+2)/2 = O(m^2), and so O(m^2) = n implies m = O(sqrt(n)).
The complexity would be :
(log n + 1)*(-1 + squareroot(1+4n))/2 = O(squareroot(n)*log n)
log n is in base 2.
Suppose n is 36.
The outer loop will iterate for log n + 1 times because the value is halved every time 36,18,9,4,2,1.
The inner loop has j values = 1,3,6,10,15,21,28,36.Every j value can be calculated as the sum of terms in AP 1+2+3+4+5....w = w(w+1)/2. So w(w+1)/2 = n.Solving this quadratic equation we get w=(-1+sqrt(1+4n))/2 i.e the number of iterations of inner loop.
For n=36, w=8.
Total complexity thus comes out to be : log n * sqrt(n).
If n numbers are given, how would I find the total number of possible triangles? Is there any method that does this in less than O(n^3) time?
I am considering a+b>c, b+c>a and a+c>b conditions for being a triangle.
Assume there is no equal numbers in given n and it's allowed to use one number more than once. For example, we given a numbers {1,2,3}, so we can create 7 triangles:
1 1 1
1 2 2
1 3 3
2 2 2
2 2 3
2 3 3
3 3 3
If any of those assumptions isn't true, it's easy to modify algorithm.
Here I present algorithm which takes O(n^2) time in worst case:
Sort numbers (ascending order).
We will take triples ai <= aj <= ak, such that i <= j <= k.
For each i, j you need to find largest k that satisfy ak <= ai + aj. Then all triples (ai,aj,al) j <= l <= k is triangle (because ak >= aj >= ai we can only violate ak < a i+ aj).
Consider two pairs (i, j1) and (i, j2) j1 <= j2. It's easy to see that k2 (found on step 2 for (i, j2)) >= k1 (found one step 2 for (i, j1)). It means that if you iterate for j, and you only need to check numbers starting from previous k. So it gives you O(n) time complexity for each particular i, which implies O(n^2) for whole algorithm.
C++ source code:
int Solve(int* a, int n)
{
int answer = 0;
std::sort(a, a + n);
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
int k = i;
for (int j = i; j < n; ++j)
{
while (n > k && a[i] + a[j] > a[k])
++k;
answer += k - j;
}
}
return answer;
}
Update for downvoters:
This definitely is O(n^2)! Please read carefully "An Introduction of Algorithms" by Thomas H. Cormen chapter about Amortized Analysis (17.2 in second edition).
Finding complexity by counting nested loops is completely wrong sometimes.
Here I try to explain it as simple as I could. Let's fix i variable. Then for that i we must iterate j from i to n (it means O(n) operation) and internal while loop iterate k from i to n (it also means O(n) operation). Note: I don't start while loop from the beginning for each j. We also need to do it for each i from 0 to n. So it gives us n * (O(n) + O(n)) = O(n^2).
There is a simple algorithm in O(n^2*logn).
Assume you want all triangles as triples (a, b, c) where a <= b <= c.
There are 3 triangle inequalities but only a + b > c suffices (others then hold trivially).
And now:
Sort the sequence in O(n * logn), e.g. by merge-sort.
For each pair (a, b), a <= b the remaining value c needs to be at least b and less than a + b.
So you need to count the number of items in the interval [b, a+b).
This can be simply done by binary-searching a+b (O(logn)) and counting the number of items in [b,a+b) for every possibility which is b-a.
All together O(n * logn + n^2 * logn) which is O(n^2 * logn). Hope this helps.
If you use a binary sort, that's O(n-log(n)), right? Keep your binary tree handy, and for each pair (a,b) where a b and c < (a+b).
Let a, b and c be three sides. The below condition must hold for a triangle (Sum of two sides is greater than the third side)
i) a + b > c
ii) b + c > a
iii) a + c > b
Following are steps to count triangle.
Sort the array in non-decreasing order.
Initialize two pointers ‘i’ and ‘j’ to first and second elements respectively, and initialize count of triangles as 0.
Fix ‘i’ and ‘j’ and find the rightmost index ‘k’ (or largest ‘arr[k]‘) such that ‘arr[i] + arr[j] > arr[k]‘. The number of triangles that can be formed with ‘arr[i]‘ and ‘arr[j]‘ as two sides is ‘k – j’. Add ‘k – j’ to count of triangles.
Let us consider ‘arr[i]‘ as ‘a’, ‘arr[j]‘ as b and all elements between ‘arr[j+1]‘ and ‘arr[k]‘ as ‘c’. The above mentioned conditions (ii) and (iii) are satisfied because ‘arr[i] < arr[j] < arr[k]'. And we check for condition (i) when we pick 'k'
4.Increment ‘j’ to fix the second element again.
Note that in step 3, we can use the previous value of ‘k’. The reason is simple, if we know that the value of ‘arr[i] + arr[j-1]‘ is greater than ‘arr[k]‘, then we can say ‘arr[i] + arr[j]‘ will also be greater than ‘arr[k]‘, because the array is sorted in increasing order.
5.If ‘j’ has reached end, then increment ‘i’. Initialize ‘j’ as ‘i + 1′, ‘k’ as ‘i+2′ and repeat the steps 3 and 4.
Time Complexity: O(n^2).
The time complexity looks more because of 3 nested loops. If we take a closer look at the algorithm, we observe that k is initialized only once in the outermost loop. The innermost loop executes at most O(n) time for every iteration of outer most loop, because k starts from i+2 and goes upto n for all values of j. Therefore, the time complexity is O(n^2).
I have worked out an algorithm that runs in O(n^2 lgn) time. I think its correct...
The code is wtitten in C++...
int Search_Closest(A,p,q,n) /*Returns the index of the element closest to n in array
A[p..q]*/
{
if(p<q)
{
int r = (p+q)/2;
if(n==A[r])
return r;
if(p==r)
return r;
if(n<A[r])
Search_Closest(A,p,r,n);
else
Search_Closest(A,r,q,n);
}
else
return p;
}
int no_of_triangles(A,p,q) /*Returns the no of triangles possible in A[p..q]*/
{
int sum = 0;
Quicksort(A,p,q); //Sorts the array A[p..q] in O(nlgn) expected case time
for(int i=p;i<=q;i++)
for(int j =i+1;j<=q;j++)
{
int c = A[i]+A[j];
int k = Search_Closest(A,j,q,c);
/* no of triangles formed with A[i] and A[j] as two sides is (k+1)-2 if A[k] is small or equal to c else its (k+1)-3. As index starts from zero we need to add 1 to the value*/
if(A[k]>c)
sum+=k-2;
else
sum+=k-1;
}
return sum;
}
Hope it helps........
possible answer
Although we can use binary search to find the value of 'k' hence improve time complexity!
N0,N1,N2,...Nn-1
sort
X0,X1,X2,...Xn-1 as X0>=X1>=X2>=...>=Xn-1
choice X0(to Xn-3) and choice form rest two item x1...
choice case of (X0,X1,X2)
check(X0<X1+X2)
OK is find and continue
NG is skip choice rest
It seems there is no algorithm better than O(n^3). In the worst case, the result set itself has O(n^3) elements.
For Example, if n equal numbers are given, the algorithm has to return n*(n-1)*(n-2) results.