The first loop runs O(log n) time but the second loop's runtime depends on the counter of the first loop, If we examine it more it should run like (1+2+4+8+16....+N) I just couldn't find a reasonable answer to this series...
for (int i = 1; i < n; i = i * 2)
{
for (int j = 1; j < i; j++)
{
//const time
}
}
Just like you said. If N is power of two, then 1+2+4+8+16....+N is exactly 2*N-1 (sum of geometric series) . This is same as O(N) that can be simplified to N.
It is like :
1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ....+ N
= 2 ^ [O(log(N) + 1] - 1
= O(N)
Related
This is my code. 1<=i<=j<=n j-i<=a 1<=n<=1000000 0<=a<=1000000
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main(){
int n, a, r = 0;
cin>>n>>a;
for(int i = 1; i <= n; i++){
int j = i;
for(j; j <= n; j++){
if(j-i<=a){
r++;
}
}
}
cout<<r;
}
Instead of loops, I changed it to a simple check of variables, which greatly accelerated the code. there is no need to calculate thousands of options.
My final, optimized code is:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main(){
unsigned long long n, a, r = 0;
cin>>n>>a;
if(a==0){
r = n;
}
if(n<=a){
r = (n*(n+1))/2;
}
if(n>a){
r += (n-a)*(a+1) + (a*(a+1))/2;
}
cout<<r;
}
After accounting for both positive numbers, negative numbers, and zeros, your double-nested for-loop can be simplified into this:
if (n < 1)
{
r = 0;
}
else if (a == 0)
{
r = n;
}
else if (a < 0)
{
r = 0;
}
else if (n <= a)
{
r = (n * (n + 1)) / 2;
}
else
{
r = (n-a)*(a + 1) + (a * (a + 1)) / 2;
}
Recall that summing a sequence of digits from 1..N is:
N*(N+1)
-------
2
If n <= a (positive numbers), r is incremented n times in the inner loop on the first iteration of the outer loop. Then n-1 times, then n-2 times... all the way down to 1.
For cases where n > a, then there are n-a summations of a+1 followed by a decrementing summation from a down to 1
This strikes me as something to speed up by doing a bit of math, not by massaging the code.
Basically, we can think of the loops as defining a square matrix of the values of i and j. So let's assume n = 9, and a = 3. I'll draw in a + for each place we increment r, a blank for the values we don't generate, and a 0 for the places we generate values, but don't increment r.
i\j 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 + + + + 0 0 0 0 0
2 + + + + 0 0 0 0
3 + + + + 0 0 0
4 + + + + 0 0
5 + + + + 0
6 + + + +
7 + + +
8 + +
9 +
So, ignoring the last a rows (i.e., for the first n-a rows), in each row we have a band a + 1 elements wide where we do an increment. Then at the end, we have a triangle, where we're basically summing a + a-1 + a-2 ... 0.
So, the first piece is (a+1) * (n-a) and the second piece is a * (a+1) / 2. Add those together, and we get the final answer.
Seems like
for(j; j <= n; j++){
if(j-i<=a){
r++;
}
}
could be replaced by
r += f(i,n,a);
Where f() is some simple expression involving those 3 values, probably including the equivalent of min(..,..)
If you want to speed up your code, instead of just tuning your algorithm, you can also try to use some parallel api.
Parallel computing api such as OpenMP enables you take advantage of your cpu resources.
If you uses OpenMP, you can try to use it to parallel your loop.
I am having trouble deciding between N^2 and NlogN as the Big O? Whats throwing me off is the third nested for loop from k <=j. How do I reconcile this?
int Max_Subsequence_Sum( const int A[], const int N )
{
int This_Sum = 0, Max_Sum = 0;
for (int i=0; i<N; i++)
{
for (int j=i; j<N; j++)
{
This_Sum = 0;
for (int k=i; k<=j; k++)
{
This_Sum += A[k];
}
if (This_Sum > Max_Sum)
{
Max_Sum = This_Sum;
}
}
}
return Max_Sum;
}
This can be done with estimation or analysis. Looking at the inner most loop there are j-i operations inside the second loop. To get the total number of operations one would sum to get :
(1+N)(2 N + N^2) / 6
Making the algorithm O(N^3). To estimate one can see that there are three loops which at some point have O(N) calls thus it's O(N^3).
Let us analyze the most inner loop first:
for (int k=i; k <= j; k++) {
This_Sum += A[k];
}
Here the counter k iterates from i (inclusive) to j (inclusive), this thus means that the body of the for loop is performed j-i+1 times. If we assume that fetching the k-th number from an array is done in constant time, and the arithmetic operations (incrementing k, calculating the sum of This_Sum and A[k], and comparking k with j), then this thus runs in O(j-i).
The initialization of This_Sum and the if statement is not significant:
This_Sum = 0;
// ...
if (This_Sum > Max_Sum) {
Max_Sum = This_Sum;
}
indeed, if we can compare two numbers in constant time, and set one variable to the value hold by another value in constant time, then regardless whether the condition holds or not, the number of operations is fixed.
Now we can take a look at the loop in the middle, and abstract away the most inner loop:
for (int j=i; j < N; j++) {
// constant number of oprations
// j-i+1 operations
// constant number of operations
}
Here j ranges from i to N, so that means that the total number of operations is:
N
---
\
/ j - i + 1
---
j=i
This sum is equivalent to:
N
---
\
(N-j) * (1 - i) + / j
---
j=i
This is an arithmetic sum [wiki] and it is equivalent to:
(N - i + 1) × ((1 - i) + (i+N) / 2) = (N - i + 1) × ((N-i) / 2 + 1)
or when we expand this:
i2/2 + 3×N/2 - 3×i/2 + N2/2 - N×i + 1
So that means that we can now focus on the outer loop:
for (int i=0; i<N; i++) {
// i2/2 + 3×N/2 - 3×i/2 + N2/2 - N×i + 1
}
So now we can again calculate the number of operations with:
N
---
\
/ i2/2 + 3×N/2 - 3×i/2 + N2/2 - N×i + 1
---
i=0
We can use Faulhaber's formula [wiki] here to solve this sum, and obtain:
(N+1)×(N2+5×N+6)/6
or in expanded form:
N3/6 + N2 + 11×N/6 + 1
which is thus an O(n3) algorithm.
Okay so when my professor was going over it in class it seemed quite simple, but when I got to my homework I became confused. This is a homework example.
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) // I know this runs at T(n)
for (int j = n - 1; j >= i; j--)
cout << i << " " << j << endl;
Here's an example I understand
for(int i=0; i<n-1; i++) {
for(int j=i+1; j<n; j++) {
1 Simple statement
}
For that example I just plugged in 0, 1, and 2. For 0, it ran for n-1, at 1 for n-2 and at 2 n-3. So I think that for the homework example if I plugged in 0 it would run for n+1 since j has to be greater than or equal to i which is 0. If it's not obvious, i'm pretty confused. If anyone could show me how to solve it, that'd make my day. Thanks guys.
Let's dig into the functon. Let's pick some numbers.
say, n = 5
So our code looks like this (magical pseudo-code uses INCLUSIVE loops, not that it's too important)
(1)for i = 0 to 4
(2)for j = 4 to i
(3)print i j
next
next
So this is a matter of preference, but usually loops are assumed to cost 1 simple statement per execution (comparison, and incrementation). So we'll assume that statements (1) and (2) have a cost of 2. Statement (3) has a cost of 1.
Now to determine T(n).
Our outer loop for i = 0 to 4 runs exactly n times.
Our inner loop for j = 4 to i . . . We'll dig in there for a minute.
For our example with n = 5 loop (2) will execute like so
j = 4; i = 0; j = 4; i = 1; j = 4; i = 2; j = 4; i = 3 j = 4; i = 4;
j = 3; i = 0; j = 3; i = 1; j = 3; i = 2; j = 3; i = 3;
j = 2; i = 0; j = 2; i = 1; j = 2; i = 2;
j = 1; i = 0; j = 1; i = 1;
j = 0; i = 0;
So it makes this kind of pyramid shape, where we do 1 less iteration each time. This particular example ran 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 15 times.
We can write this down as SUM(i; i = 0 to n).
Which we know from precalc: = (1/2)(n)(n+1).
And (3) will execute the exact same number of times as that inner loop since it's the only statement. So our total runtime is going to be. . .
COST(1) + COST(2) + COST(3)
(2)(n) + 2(1/2)(n)(n+1) + (1/2)(n)(n+1)
We can clean this up to be
(3/2)(n)(n+1) + 2n = T(n).
That said, this assumes that loops cost 2 and the statement costs 1. It's usually more meaningful to say loops cost 0 and statements cost 1. If that were the case, T(n) = (1/2)(n)(n+1).
And givent that T(n), we know T(n) is O(n^2).
Hope this helps!
It's not that hard.
3 examples for single loops:
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
for(int i = 0; i < n-1; i++)
for(int i = 2; i < n-1; i++)
The first loop executs it's content n times (i=0,1,2,3,...,n-1).
The same way, the second loop is just n-1 times.
The third would be n-3 because it starts not at 0, but 2
(and if n is less than 3, ie. n-3<0, it won't execute at all)
In a nested loop like
for(int i = 0; i < n-1; i++) {
for(int j = 0; j < n; j++) {
//something
}
}
For each pass of the outer loop, the whole inner loop is executed, ie. you can multiply both single loop counts to get how often "something" is executed in total. Here, it is (n-1) * n = n^2 - n.
If the inner loop depends on the value of the outer loop, it gets a bit more complicated:
for(int i = 0; i < n-1; i++) {
for(int j = i+1; j < n; j++) {
//something
}
}
The inner loop alone is n - (i+1) times, the outer one n-1 times (with i going from 0 to n-2).
While there are "proper" ways to calculate this, a bit logical thinking is often easier, as you did already:
i-value => inner-loop-time
0 => n-1
1 => n-2
...
n-2 => n - (n-2+1) = 1
So you´ll need the sum 1+2+3+...+(n-1).
For calculating sums from 1 to x, following formula helps:
sum[1...x] = x*(x+1)/2
So, the sum from 1 to n-1 is
sum[1...n-1] = (n-1)*(n-1+1)/2 = (n^2 - n)/2
and that´s the solution for the loops above (your second code).
About the first code:
Outer loop: n
Inner loop: From n-1 down to i included, or the other way from i up to <=n-1,
or from i up to <n, that´s n-i times
i >= innerloop
0 n
1 n-1
2 n-2
...
n-1 1
...and the sum from 1 to n is (n^2 + n)/2.
One easy way to investigate a problem is to model it and look at resulting data.
In your case, the question is: how many iterations does the inner loop depending on the the value of the outer loop variable?
let n = 10 in [0..n-1] |> List.map (fun x -> x,n-1-x);;
The 1 line above is the model showing what happens. If you now look at the resulting output, you will quickly notice something...
val it : (int * int) list =
[(0, 9); (1, 8); (2, 7); (3, 6); (4, 5); (5, 4); (6, 3); (7, 2); (8, 1);
(9, 0)]
What is it you notice? For a given N you run the outer loop N times - this is trivial. Now we need to sum up the second numbers and we have the solution:
sum(N-1..0) = sum(N-1..1) = N * (N-1) / 2.
So the total count of cout calls is N * (N-1) / 2.
Another easy way to achieve the same is to modify your function a bit:
int count(int n) {
int c = 0;
<outer for loop>
<inner for loop>
c++;
return c;
}
This question already has answers here:
Big O, how do you calculate/approximate it?
(24 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
Compute the complexity of the following Algorithm?
I have the following code snippet:
i = 1;
while (i < n + 1) {
j = 1;
while (j < n + 1) {
j = j * 2;
}
i = i + 1;
}
plz explain it in detail
I want to know the the steps to solve the problem so I can solve such problems
Since j grows exponentially, the inner loop takes O(log(n)).
Since i grows linearly, the outer loop takes O(n).
Hence the overall complexity is O(n*log(n)).
i = 1;
while(i < n + 1){
j = 1;
While(j < n + 1){
j = j * 2:
}
i = i + 1;
}
outer loop takes O(n) since it increments by constant.
i = 1;
while(i < n + 1){
i = i + 1;
}
inner loop : j = 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, ...., 2^k
j = 2^k (k >= 0)
when will j stops ?
when j == n,
log(2^k) = log(n)
=> k * lg(2) = lg(n) ..... so k = lg(n).
While(j < n + 1){
j = j * 2;
}
so total O(n * lg(n))
You can simply understand outer-loop(with i) because it loops exactly n times. (1, 2, 3, ..., n). But inner-loop(j) is little difficult to understand.
Let's assume that n is 8. How much it loops? Starting with j = 1, it will be increased as exponentially : 1, 2, 4, 8. When j is over 8, loop will be terminated. It loops exactly 4 times. Then we can think general-form of this problem...
Think of that sequence 1, 2, 4, 8, .... If n is 2^k (k is non-negative integer), inner-loop will take k+1 times. (Because 2^(loop-1) = 2^k) Due to the assumption : n = 2^k, we can say that k = lg(n). So we can say inner-loop takes lg(n)+1 times.
When n is not exactly fit to 2^k, it takes one more time. ([lg(n)]+1) It's not a big deal with complexity though it has floor function. You can ingonre it this time.
So the total costs will be like this : n*(lg(n)+1). If you are familiar with Big-O notation, it can be expressed as : O(n lg n).
This one is similar to the following code :
for( int i = 1;i < n+1 ; i++){ // this loop runs n times
for(int j = 1 ; j<n+1 ; j=j*2){// this loop runs log_2(n)(log base 2 because it grows exponentially with 2)
//body
}
}
Hence in Big-Oh notation it is O(n)*O(logn) ; i.e, O(n*logn)
You can proceed like the following:
1) for (i = 1; i < n; i++) { > n
2) SmallPos = i; > n-1
3) Smallest = Array[SmallPos]; > n-1
4) for (j = i+1; j <= n; j++) > n*(n+1 -i-1)??
5) if (Array[j] < Smallest) { > n*(n+1 -i-1 +1) ??
6) SmallPos = j; > n*(n+1 -i-1 +1) ??
7) Smallest = Array[SmallPos] > n*(n+1 -i-1 +1) ??
}
8) Array[SmallPos] = Array[i]; > n-1
9) Array[i] = Smallest; > n-1
}
i know the big O notation is n^2 ( my bad its not n^3)
i am not sure between line 4-7 anyone care to help out?
im not sure how to get the out put for the second loop since j = i +1 as i changes so does j
also for line 4 the ans suppose to be n(n+1)/2 -1 i want to know why as i can never get that
i am not really solving for the big O i am trying to do the steps that gets to big O as constant and variables are excuded in big O notations.
I would say this is O(n^2) (although as Fred points out above, O(n^2) is a subset of O(n^3), so it's not wrong to say that it's O(n^3)).
Note that it's generally not necessary to compute the number of executions of every single line; as Big-O notation discards low-order terms, it's sufficient to focus only on the most-executed section (which will typically be inside the innermost loop).
So in your case, none of the loops are affected by the values in Array, so we can safely ignore all that. The innermost loop runs (n-1) + (n-2) + (n-3) + ... times; this is an arithmetic series, and so has a term in n^2.
Is this an algorithm given to you, or one you wrote?
I think your loop indexes are wrong.
for (i = 1; i < n; i++) {
should be either
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
or
for (i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
depending on whether your array indexes start at 0 or 1 (it's 0 in C and Java).
Assuming we correct it to:
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
SmallPos = i;
Smallest = Array[SmallPos];
for (j = i+1; j < n; j++)
if (Array[j] < Smallest) {
SmallPos = j;
Smallest = Array[SmallPos];
}
Array[SmallPos] = Array[i];
Array[i] = Smallest;
}
Then I think the complexity is n2-3/2n = O(n2).
Here's how...
The most costly operation in the innermost loop (my lecturer called this the "basic operation") is key comparison at line 5. It is done once per loop.
So now, you create a summation:
Sum(i=0 to n-1) of Sum(j=i+1 to n-1) of 1.
Now expand the innermost (rightmost) Sum to get:
Sum(i=0 to n-1) of (n-1)-(i+1)+1
and then:
Sum(i=0 to n-1) of n-i-1
and then:
[Sum(i=0 to n-1) of n] - [Sum(i=0 to n-1) of i] - [Sum (i=0 to n-1) of 1]
and then:
n[Sum(i=0 to n-1) of 1] - [(n-1)(n)/2] - [(n-1)-0+1]
and then:
n[(n-1)-0+1] - [(n^2-n)/2] - [n]
and then:
n^2 - [(n^2/2) - n/2] - n
equals:
1/2n^2 - 1/2n
is in:
O(n^2)
If you're asking why it's not O(n3)...
Consider the worst case. if (Array[j] < Smallest) will be true the most times if Array is reverse sorted.
Then you have an inner loop that looks like this:
Array[j] < Smallest;
SmallPos = j;
Smallest = Array[SmallPos];
Now we've got a constant three operations for every inner for (j...) loop.
And O(3) = O(1).
So really, it's i and j that determine how much work we do. Nothing in the inner if loop changes anything.
You can think of it as you should only count while and for loops.
As to why for (j = i+1; j <= n; j++) is n(n+1)/2. It's called an arithmetic series.
You're doing n-1 passes of the for (j...) loop when i==0, n-2 passes when i==1, n-3, etc, until 0.
So the summation is
n-1 + n-2 + n-3 + ... 3 + 2 + 1
now, you sum pairs from outside in, re-writing it as:
n-1+1 + n-2+2 + n-3+3 + ...
equals:
n + n + n + ...
and there are n/2 of these pairs, so you have:
n*(n/2)
Two for() loops, the outer loop from 1 to n, the inner loop runs between 1..n, to n. This makes it O(n^2).
If you 'draw this out', it'll be triangular, rather than rectangular, so O(n^2), while true, is hiding the fact that the constant factor term is smaller than if the inner loop also iterated from 1 to n.
It is O(n^2).
For each of the n iterations of the outer loop you have n iterations in the inner loop.