Related
int n = 8; // In the video n = 8
int p = 0;
for (int i = 1; i < n; i *= 2) { // In the video i = 1
p++;
}
for (int j = 1; j < p; j *= 2) { // In the video j = 1
//code;
}
This is code from Abdul Bari Youtube channel ( link of the video), they said time complexity of this is O(loglogn) but I think it is O(log), what is the correct answer?
Fix the initial value. 0 multiplied by 2 will never end the loop.
The last loop is O(log log N) because p == log(n). However, the first loop is O(log N), hence in total it is also O(log N).
On the other hand, once you put some code in place of //code then the first loop can be negligible compared to the second and we have:
O ( log N + X * log log N)
^ first loop
^ second loop
and when X is just big enough, one can consider it as O( log log N) in total. However strictly speaking that is wrong, because complexity is about asymptotic behavior and no matter how big X, for N going to infinity, log N will always be bigger than X * log log N at some point.
PS: I assumed that //code does not depend on N, ie it has constant complexity. The above consideration changes if this is not the case.
PPS: In general complexity is important when designing algorithms. When using an algorithm it is rather irrelevant. In that case you rather care about actual runtime for your specific value of N. Complexity can be misleading and even lead to wrong expectations for a specific use case with given N.
You are correct, the time complexity of the complete code is O(log(n)).
But, Abdul Bari Sir is also correct, Because:-
In the video, Abdul Sir is trying to find the time complexity of the second for loop and not the time complexity of the whole code. Take a look at the video again and listen properly what he is saying at this time https://youtu.be/9SgLBjXqwd4?t=568
Once again, what he has derived is the time complexity of the second loop and not the time complexity of the complete code. Please listen to what he says at 9 mins and 28 secs in the video.
If your confusion is clear, please mark this as correct.
The time complexity of
int n;
int p = 0;
for (int i = 1; i < n; i *= 2) { // start at 1, not at 0
p++;
}
is O(log(n)), because you do p++ log2(n) times. The logarithms base does not matter in big O notation, because it just scales by a constant.
for (int j = 1; j < p; j *= 2) {
//code;
}
has O(log(log(n)), because you only loop up to p=log(n) by multiplying, so you have O(log(p)), so O(log(log(n)).
However, both together still are O(log(n)), because O(log(n)+log(log(n)))=O(log(n)
I have gone through Google and Stack Overflow search, but nowhere I was able to find a clear and straightforward explanation for how to calculate time complexity.
What do I know already?
Say for code as simple as the one below:
char h = 'y'; // This will be executed 1 time
int abc = 0; // This will be executed 1 time
Say for a loop like the one below:
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
Console.Write('Hello, World!!');
}
int i=0; This will be executed only once.
The time is actually calculated to i=0 and not the declaration.
i < N; This will be executed N+1 times
i++ This will be executed N times
So the number of operations required by this loop are {1+(N+1)+N} = 2N+2. (But this still may be wrong, as I am not confident about my understanding.)
OK, so these small basic calculations I think I know, but in most cases I have seen the time complexity as O(N), O(n^2), O(log n), O(n!), and many others.
How to find time complexity of an algorithm
You add up how many machine instructions it will execute as a function of the size of its input, and then simplify the expression to the largest (when N is very large) term and can include any simplifying constant factor.
For example, lets see how we simplify 2N + 2 machine instructions to describe this as just O(N).
Why do we remove the two 2s ?
We are interested in the performance of the algorithm as N becomes large.
Consider the two terms 2N and 2.
What is the relative influence of these two terms as N becomes large? Suppose N is a million.
Then the first term is 2 million and the second term is only 2.
For this reason, we drop all but the largest terms for large N.
So, now we have gone from 2N + 2 to 2N.
Traditionally, we are only interested in performance up to constant factors.
This means that we don't really care if there is some constant multiple of difference in performance when N is large. The unit of 2N is not well-defined in the first place anyway. So we can multiply or divide by a constant factor to get to the simplest expression.
So 2N becomes just N.
This is an excellent article: Time complexity of algorithm
The below answer is copied from above (in case the excellent link goes bust)
The most common metric for calculating time complexity is Big O notation. This removes all constant factors so that the running time can be estimated in relation to N as N approaches infinity. In general you can think of it like this:
statement;
Is constant. The running time of the statement will not change in relation to N.
for ( i = 0; i < N; i++ )
statement;
Is linear. The running time of the loop is directly proportional to N. When N doubles, so does the running time.
for ( i = 0; i < N; i++ ) {
for ( j = 0; j < N; j++ )
statement;
}
Is quadratic. The running time of the two loops is proportional to the square of N. When N doubles, the running time increases by N * N.
while ( low <= high ) {
mid = ( low + high ) / 2;
if ( target < list[mid] )
high = mid - 1;
else if ( target > list[mid] )
low = mid + 1;
else break;
}
Is logarithmic. The running time of the algorithm is proportional to the number of times N can be divided by 2. This is because the algorithm divides the working area in half with each iteration.
void quicksort (int list[], int left, int right)
{
int pivot = partition (list, left, right);
quicksort(list, left, pivot - 1);
quicksort(list, pivot + 1, right);
}
Is N * log (N). The running time consists of N loops (iterative or recursive) that are logarithmic, thus the algorithm is a combination of linear and logarithmic.
In general, doing something with every item in one dimension is linear, doing something with every item in two dimensions is quadratic, and dividing the working area in half is logarithmic. There are other Big O measures such as cubic, exponential, and square root, but they're not nearly as common. Big O notation is described as O ( <type> ) where <type> is the measure. The quicksort algorithm would be described as O (N * log(N )).
Note that none of this has taken into account best, average, and worst case measures. Each would have its own Big O notation. Also note that this is a VERY simplistic explanation. Big O is the most common, but it's also more complex that I've shown. There are also other notations such as big omega, little o, and big theta. You probably won't encounter them outside of an algorithm analysis course. ;)
Taken from here - Introduction to Time Complexity of an Algorithm
1. Introduction
In computer science, the time complexity of an algorithm quantifies the amount of time taken by an algorithm to run as a function of the length of the string representing the input.
2. Big O notation
The time complexity of an algorithm is commonly expressed using big O notation, which excludes coefficients and lower order terms. When expressed this way, the time complexity is said to be described asymptotically, i.e., as the input size goes to infinity.
For example, if the time required by an algorithm on all inputs of size n is at most 5n3 + 3n, the asymptotic time complexity is O(n3). More on that later.
A few more examples:
1 = O(n)
n = O(n2)
log(n) = O(n)
2 n + 1 = O(n)
3. O(1) constant time:
An algorithm is said to run in constant time if it requires the same amount of time regardless of the input size.
Examples:
array: accessing any element
fixed-size stack: push and pop methods
fixed-size queue: enqueue and dequeue methods
4. O(n) linear time
An algorithm is said to run in linear time if its time execution is directly proportional to the input size, i.e. time grows linearly as input size increases.
Consider the following examples. Below I am linearly searching for an element, and this has a time complexity of O(n).
int find = 66;
var numbers = new int[] { 33, 435, 36, 37, 43, 45, 66, 656, 2232 };
for (int i = 0; i < numbers.Length - 1; i++)
{
if(find == numbers[i])
{
return;
}
}
More Examples:
Array: Linear Search, Traversing, Find minimum etc
ArrayList: contains method
Queue: contains method
5. O(log n) logarithmic time:
An algorithm is said to run in logarithmic time if its time execution is proportional to the logarithm of the input size.
Example: Binary Search
Recall the "twenty questions" game - the task is to guess the value of a hidden number in an interval. Each time you make a guess, you are told whether your guess is too high or too low. Twenty questions game implies a strategy that uses your guess number to halve the interval size. This is an example of the general problem-solving method known as binary search.
6. O(n2) quadratic time
An algorithm is said to run in quadratic time if its time execution is proportional to the square of the input size.
Examples:
Bubble Sort
Selection Sort
Insertion Sort
7. Some useful links
Big-O Misconceptions
Determining The Complexity Of Algorithm
Big O Cheat Sheet
Several examples of loop.
O(n) time complexity of a loop is considered as O(n) if the loop variables is incremented / decremented by a constant amount. For example following functions have O(n) time complexity.
// Here c is a positive integer constant
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i += c) {
// some O(1) expressions
}
for (int i = n; i > 0; i -= c) {
// some O(1) expressions
}
O(nc) time complexity of nested loops is equal to the number of times the innermost statement is executed. For example, the following sample loops have O(n2) time complexity
for (int i = 1; i <=n; i += c) {
for (int j = 1; j <=n; j += c) {
// some O(1) expressions
}
}
for (int i = n; i > 0; i += c) {
for (int j = i+1; j <=n; j += c) {
// some O(1) expressions
}
For example, selection sort and insertion sort have O(n2) time complexity.
O(log n) time complexity of a loop is considered as O(log n) if the loop variables is divided / multiplied by a constant amount.
for (int i = 1; i <=n; i *= c) {
// some O(1) expressions
}
for (int i = n; i > 0; i /= c) {
// some O(1) expressions
}
For example, [binary search][3] has _O(log n)_ time complexity.
O(log log n) time complexity of a loop is considered as O(log log n) if the loop variables is reduced / increased exponentially by a constant amount.
// Here c is a constant greater than 1
for (int i = 2; i <=n; i = pow(i, c)) {
// some O(1) expressions
}
//Here fun is sqrt or cuberoot or any other constant root
for (int i = n; i > 0; i = fun(i)) {
// some O(1) expressions
}
One example of time complexity analysis
int fun(int n)
{
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++)
{
for (int j = 1; j < n; j += i)
{
// Some O(1) task
}
}
}
Analysis:
For i = 1, the inner loop is executed n times.
For i = 2, the inner loop is executed approximately n/2 times.
For i = 3, the inner loop is executed approximately n/3 times.
For i = 4, the inner loop is executed approximately n/4 times.
…………………………………………………….
For i = n, the inner loop is executed approximately n/n times.
So the total time complexity of the above algorithm is (n + n/2 + n/3 + … + n/n), which becomes n * (1/1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + … + 1/n)
The important thing about series (1/1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + … + 1/n) is around to O(log n). So the time complexity of the above code is O(n·log n).
References:
1
2
3
Time complexity with examples
1 - Basic operations (arithmetic, comparisons, accessing array’s elements, assignment): The running time is always constant O(1)
Example:
read(x) // O(1)
a = 10; // O(1)
a = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 // O(1)
2 - If then else statement: Only taking the maximum running time from two or more possible statements.
Example:
age = read(x) // (1+1) = 2
if age < 17 then begin // 1
status = "Not allowed!"; // 1
end else begin
status = "Welcome! Please come in"; // 1
visitors = visitors + 1; // 1+1 = 2
end;
So, the complexity of the above pseudo code is T(n) = 2 + 1 + max(1, 1+2) = 6. Thus, its big oh is still constant T(n) = O(1).
3 - Looping (for, while, repeat): Running time for this statement is the number of loops multiplied by the number of operations inside that looping.
Example:
total = 0; // 1
for i = 1 to n do begin // (1+1)*n = 2n
total = total + i; // (1+1)*n = 2n
end;
writeln(total); // 1
So, its complexity is T(n) = 1+4n+1 = 4n + 2. Thus, T(n) = O(n).
4 - Nested loop (looping inside looping): Since there is at least one looping inside the main looping, running time of this statement used O(n^2) or O(n^3).
Example:
for i = 1 to n do begin // (1+1)*n = 2n
for j = 1 to n do begin // (1+1)n*n = 2n^2
x = x + 1; // (1+1)n*n = 2n^2
print(x); // (n*n) = n^2
end;
end;
Common running time
There are some common running times when analyzing an algorithm:
O(1) – Constant time
Constant time means the running time is constant, it’s not affected by the input size.
O(n) – Linear time
When an algorithm accepts n input size, it would perform n operations as well.
O(log n) – Logarithmic time
Algorithm that has running time O(log n) is slight faster than O(n). Commonly, algorithm divides the problem into sub problems with the same size. Example: binary search algorithm, binary conversion algorithm.
O(n log n) – Linearithmic time
This running time is often found in "divide & conquer algorithms" which divide the problem into sub problems recursively and then merge them in n time. Example: Merge Sort algorithm.
O(n2) – Quadratic time
Look Bubble Sort algorithm!
O(n3) – Cubic time
It has the same principle with O(n2).
O(2n) – Exponential time
It is very slow as input get larger, if n = 1,000,000, T(n) would be 21,000,000. Brute Force algorithm has this running time.
O(n!) – Factorial time
The slowest!!! Example: Travelling salesman problem (TSP)
It is taken from this article. It is very well explained and you should give it a read.
When you're analyzing code, you have to analyse it line by line, counting every operation/recognizing time complexity. In the end, you have to sum it to get whole picture.
For example, you can have one simple loop with linear complexity, but later in that same program you can have a triple loop that has cubic complexity, so your program will have cubic complexity. Function order of growth comes into play right here.
Let's look at what are possibilities for time complexity of an algorithm, you can see order of growth I mentioned above:
Constant time has an order of growth 1, for example: a = b + c.
Logarithmic time has an order of growth log N. It usually occurs when you're dividing something in half (binary search, trees, and even loops), or multiplying something in same way.
Linear. The order of growth is N, for example
int p = 0;
for (int i = 1; i < N; i++)
p = p + 2;
Linearithmic. The order of growth is n·log N. It usually occurs in divide-and-conquer algorithms.
Cubic. The order of growth is N3. A classic example is a triple loop where you check all triplets:
int x = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < N; j++)
for (int k = 0; k < N; k++)
x = x + 2
Exponential. The order of growth is 2N. It usually occurs when you do exhaustive search, for example, check subsets of some set.
Loosely speaking, time complexity is a way of summarising how the number of operations or run-time of an algorithm grows as the input size increases.
Like most things in life, a cocktail party can help us understand.
O(N)
When you arrive at the party, you have to shake everyone's hand (do an operation on every item). As the number of attendees N increases, the time/work it will take you to shake everyone's hand increases as O(N).
Why O(N) and not cN?
There's variation in the amount of time it takes to shake hands with people. You could average this out and capture it in a constant c. But the fundamental operation here --- shaking hands with everyone --- would always be proportional to O(N), no matter what c was. When debating whether we should go to a cocktail party, we're often more interested in the fact that we'll have to meet everyone than in the minute details of what those meetings look like.
O(N^2)
The host of the cocktail party wants you to play a silly game where everyone meets everyone else. Therefore, you must meet N-1 other people and, because the next person has already met you, they must meet N-2 people, and so on. The sum of this series is x^2/2+x/2. As the number of attendees grows, the x^2 term gets big fast, so we just drop everything else.
O(N^3)
You have to meet everyone else and, during each meeting, you must talk about everyone else in the room.
O(1)
The host wants to announce something. They ding a wineglass and speak loudly. Everyone hears them. It turns out it doesn't matter how many attendees there are, this operation always takes the same amount of time.
O(log N)
The host has laid everyone out at the table in alphabetical order. Where is Dan? You reason that he must be somewhere between Adam and Mandy (certainly not between Mandy and Zach!). Given that, is he between George and Mandy? No. He must be between Adam and Fred, and between Cindy and Fred. And so on... we can efficiently locate Dan by looking at half the set and then half of that set. Ultimately, we look at O(log_2 N) individuals.
O(N log N)
You could find where to sit down at the table using the algorithm above. If a large number of people came to the table, one at a time, and all did this, that would take O(N log N) time. This turns out to be how long it takes to sort any collection of items when they must be compared.
Best/Worst Case
You arrive at the party and need to find Inigo - how long will it take? It depends on when you arrive. If everyone is milling around you've hit the worst-case: it will take O(N) time. However, if everyone is sitting down at the table, it will take only O(log N) time. Or maybe you can leverage the host's wineglass-shouting power and it will take only O(1) time.
Assuming the host is unavailable, we can say that the Inigo-finding algorithm has a lower-bound of O(log N) and an upper-bound of O(N), depending on the state of the party when you arrive.
Space & Communication
The same ideas can be applied to understanding how algorithms use space or communication.
Knuth has written a nice paper about the former entitled "The Complexity of Songs".
Theorem 2: There exist arbitrarily long songs of complexity O(1).
PROOF: (due to Casey and the Sunshine Band). Consider the songs Sk defined by (15), but with
V_k = 'That's the way,' U 'I like it, ' U
U = 'uh huh,' 'uh huh'
for all k.
For the mathematically-minded people: The master theorem is another useful thing to know when studying complexity.
O(n) is big O notation used for writing time complexity of an algorithm. When you add up the number of executions in an algorithm, you'll get an expression in result like 2N+2. In this expression, N is the dominating term (the term having largest effect on expression if its value increases or decreases). Now O(N) is the time complexity while N is dominating term.
Example
For i = 1 to n;
j = 0;
while(j <= n);
j = j + 1;
Here the total number of executions for the inner loop are n+1 and the total number of executions for the outer loop are n(n+1)/2, so the total number of executions for the whole algorithm are n + 1 + n(n+1/2) = (n2 + 3n)/2.
Here n^2 is the dominating term so the time complexity for this algorithm is O(n2).
Other answers concentrate on the big-O-notation and practical examples. I want to answer the question by emphasizing the theoretical view. The explanation below is necessarily lacking in details; an excellent source to learn computational complexity theory is Introduction to the Theory of Computation by Michael Sipser.
Turing Machines
The most widespread model to investigate any question about computation is a Turing machine. A Turing machine has a one dimensional tape consisting of symbols which is used as a memory device. It has a tapehead which is used to write and read from the tape. It has a transition table determining the machine's behaviour, which is a fixed hardware component that is decided when the machine is created. A Turing machine works at discrete time steps doing the following:
It reads the symbol under the tapehead.
Depending on the symbol and its internal state, which can only take finitely many values, it reads three values s, σ, and X from its transition table, where s is an internal state, σ is a symbol, and X is either Right or Left.
It changes its internal state to s.
It changes the symbol it has read to σ.
It moves the tapehead one step according to the direction in X.
Turing machines are powerful models of computation. They can do everything that your digital computer can do. They were introduced before the advent of digital modern computers by the father of theoretical computer science and mathematician: Alan Turing.
Time Complexity
It is hard to define the time complexity of a single problem like "Does white have a winning strategy in chess?" because there is a machine which runs for a single step giving the correct answer: Either the machine which says directly 'No' or directly 'Yes'. To make it work we instead define the time complexity of a family of problems L each of which has a size, usually the length of the problem description. Then we take a Turing machine M which correctly solves every problem in that family. When M is given a problem of this family of size n, it solves it in finitely many steps. Let us call f(n) the longest possible time it takes M to solve problems of size n. Then we say that the time complexity of L is O(f(n)), which means that there is a Turing machine which will solve an instance of it of size n in at most C.f(n) time where C is a constant independent of n.
Isn't it dependent on the machines? Can digital computers do it faster?
Yes! Some problems can be solved faster by other models of computation, for example two tape Turing machines solve some problems faster than those with a single tape. This is why theoreticians prefer to use robust complexity classes such as NL, P, NP, PSPACE, EXPTIME, etc. For example, P is the class of decision problems whose time complexity is O(p(n)) where p is a polynomial. The class P do not change even if you add ten thousand tapes to your Turing machine, or use other types of theoretical models such as random access machines.
A Difference in Theory and Practice
It is usually assumed that the time complexity of integer addition is O(1). This assumption makes sense in practice because computers use a fixed number of bits to store numbers for many applications. There is no reason to assume such a thing in theory, so time complexity of addition is O(k) where k is the number of bits needed to express the integer.
Finding The Time Complexity of a Class of Problems
The straightforward way to show the time complexity of a problem is O(f(n)) is to construct a Turing machine which solves it in O(f(n)) time. Creating Turing machines for complex problems is not trivial; one needs some familiarity with them. A transition table for a Turing machine is rarely given, and it is described in high level. It becomes easier to see how long it will take a machine to halt as one gets themselves familiar with them.
Showing that a problem is not O(f(n)) time complexity is another story... Even though there are some results like the time hierarchy theorem, there are many open problems here. For example whether problems in NP are in P, i.e. solvable in polynomial time, is one of the seven millennium prize problems in mathematics, whose solver will be awarded 1 million dollars.
I'm busy doing an assignment and I'm struggling with a question. I know I'm not supposed to ask assignment questions outright so I understand if I don't get straight answers. But here goes anyway.
We must calculate the run time complexity of different algorithms, the one I'm stuck on is this.
for(int i = 1 ; i < n ; i++)
for(int j = 0 ; j < i ; j +=2)
sum++;
Now with my understanding, my first thought would be less than O(n2), because the nested loop isn't running the full n times, and still the j variable is incrementing by 2 each loop rather than iterating like a normal for loop. Although, when I did some code simulations with N=10, N=100, N=1000, etc. I got the following results when I outputted the sum variable.
N = 10 : 25,
N = 100 : 2500,
N = 1000 : 250000,
N = 10000 : 25000000
When I look at these results, the O Notations seems like it should be much larger than just O(n).
The 4 options we have been given in the assignment are : O(1), O(n2), O(n) and O(logn). As I said earlier, I cannot see how it can be as large as O(n2), but the results are pointing to that. So I just think I don't fully understand this, or I'm missing some link.
Any help would be appreciated!
Big O notation does not give you the number of operations. It just tells you how fast it will grow with growing input. And this is what you observe.
When you increased input c times, the total number of operations grows c^2.
If you calculated (nearly) exact number of operations precisely you would get (n^2)/4.
Of course you can calculate it with sums, but since I dunno how to use math on SO I will give an "empirical" explanation. Simple loop-within-a-loop with the same start and end conditions gives n^2. Such loop produces a matrix of all possible combinations for "i" and "j". So if start is 1 and end is N in both cases you get N*N combinations (or iterations effectively).
However, yours inner loop is for i < j. This basically makes a triangle out of this square, that is the 1st 0.5 factor, and then you skip every other element, this is another 0.5 factor; multiplied you get 1/4.
And O(0.25 * n^2) = O(n^2). Sometimes people like to leave the factor in there because it lets you compare two algorithms with the same complexity. But it does not change the ratio of growth in respect to n.
Bear in mind that big-O is asymptotic notation. Constants (additive or multiplicative) have zero impact on it.
So, the outer loop runs n times, and on the ith time, the inner loop runs i / 2 times. If it weren't for the / 2 part, it would be the sum of all numbers 1 .. n, which is the well known n * (n + 1) / 2. That expands to a * n^2 + b * n + c for a non-zero a, so it's O(n^2).
Instead of summing n numbers, we're summing n / 2 numbers. But that's still somewhere around (n/2) * ((n/2) + 1) / 2. Which still expands to d * n^2 + e * n + f for a non-zero d, so it's still O(n^2).
From your output it seems like:
sum ~= (n^2)/4.
This is obviously O(n^2) (actually you can replace the O with teta).
You should recall the definition for Big-O notation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation.
The thing is that number of operations here is dependant on the square of n, even though the overall number is less than n². Nevertheless, the scaling is what matters for Big-O notation, thus it's O(n²)
With:
for (int i = 1 ; i < n ; i++)
for (int j = 0 ; j < i ; j +=2)
sum++;
We have:
0+2+4+6+...+2N == 2 * (0+1+2+3+...+N) == 2 * (N * (N+1) / 2) == N * (N+1)
so, with n == 2N, we have (n / 2) * (n / 2 + 1) ~= (n * n) / 4
so O(n²)
Your understanding regarding time complexity is not appropriate.Time Complexity is not only the matter of 'sum' variable.'sum' only calculates how many times the inner loop iterates,but you also have to consider total number of outer loop iterations.
now consider your program:
for(int i = 1 ; i < n ; i++)
for(int j = 0 ; j < i ; j +=2)
sum++;
Time complexity means running time of your program with respect to input values(here n).Here running time does not mean actual required time to execute your program in your computer .Actual required time varies from machine to machine.so to get a machine independent running time, Big O notation is very useful.Bog O actually comes from mathematics and it describes the running time in terms of mathematical functions.
The outer loop is executed total (n-1) times.for each of these (n-1) values (starting from i=1), the inner loop iterates i/2 times.so total number of inner loop iterations=1+1+2+2+3+3+...+(n/2)+(n/2)=2(1+2+3+...+n/2)=2*(n/2(n/2+1))/2=n^2/4+n/2.
similarly 'sum++' also executed total n^2/4+n/2 times.Now consider cost of line 1 of the program=c1,cost of line 2=c2 and cost of line 3=c3 .These casts can be different for different machine. so total time required for executing the program =c1*(n-1)+c2*(n^2/4+n/2)+c3*(n^2/4+n/2)=(c2+c3)n^2/4+(c2+c3)n/2+c1*n-c1.Thus the required time can be expressed in terms of mathematical function.In Big O notation you can say it is O((c2+c3)n^2/4+(c2+c3)n/2+c1*n-c1).In case of Big O notation, lower order terms and coefficient of highest order term can be ignored. because for large value of n ,n^2 is much greater than n. so you can say it is O((c1+c2)n^2/4).Also as for any value of n , n^2 is greater than (c1+c2)n^2/4 by a constant factor, so you can say it is O(n^2).
I am given a array A[] having N elements which are positive integers
.I have to find the number of sequences of lengths 1,2,3,..,N that satisfy a particular property?
I have built an interval tree with O(nlogn) complexity.Now I want to count the number of sequences that satisfy a certain property ?
All the properties required for the problem are related to sum of the sequences
Note an array will have N*(N+1)/2 sequences. How can I iterate over all of them in O(nlogn) or O(n) ?
If we let k be the moving index from 0 to N(elements), we will run an algorithm that is essentially looking for the MIN R that satisfies the condition (lets say I), then every other subset for L = k also is satisfied for R >= I (this is your short circuit). After you find I, simply return an output for (L=k, R>=I). This of course assumes that all numerics in your set are >= 0.
To find I, for every k, begin at element k + (N-k)/2. Figure out if this defined subset from (L=k, R=k+(N-k)/2) satisfies your condition. If it does, then decrement R until your condition is NOT met, then R=1 is your MIN (your could choose to print these results as you go, but they results in these cases would be essentially printed backwards). If (L=k, R=k+(N-k)/2) does not satisfy your condition, then INCREMENT R until it does, and this becomes your MIN for that L=k. This degrades your search space for each L=k by a factor of 2. As k increases and approaches N, your search space continuously decreases.
// This declaration wont work unless N is either a constant or MACRO defined above
unsigned int myVals[N];
unsigned int Ndiv2 = N / 2;
unsigned int R;
for(unsigned int k; k < N; k++){
if(TRUE == TESTVALS(myVals, k, Ndiv2)){ // It Passes
for(I = NDiv2; I>=k; I--){
if(FALSE == TESTVALS(myVals, k, I)){
I++;
break;
}
}
}else{ // It Didnt Pass
for(I = NDiv2; I>=k; I++){
if(TRUE == TESTVALS(myVals, k, I)){
break;
}
}
}
// PRINT ALL PAIRS from L=k, from R=I to R=N-1
if((k & 0x00000001) == 0) Ndiv2++;
} // END --> for(unsigned int k; k < N; k++)
The complexity of the algorithm above is O(N^2). This is because for each k in N(i.e. N iterations / tests) there is no greater than N/2 values for each that need testing. Big O notation isnt concerned about the N/2 nor the fact that truly N gets smaller as k grows, it is concerned with really only the gross magnitude. Thus it would say N tests for every N values thus O(N^2)
There is an Alternative approach which would be FASTER. That approach would be to whenever you wish to move within the secondary (inner) for loops, you could perform a move have the distance algorithm. This would get you to your O(nlogn) set of steps. For each k in N (which would all have to be tested), you run this half distance approach to find your MIN R value in logN time. As an example, lets say you have a 1000 element array. when k = 0, we essentially begin the search for MIN R at index 500. If the test passes, instead of linearly moving downward from 500 to 0, we test 250. Lets say the actual MIN R for k = 0 is 300. Then the tests to find MIN R would look as follows:
R=500
R=250
R=375
R=312
R=280
R=296
R=304
R=300
While this is oversimplified, your are most likely going to have to optimize, and test 301 as well 299 to make sure youre in the sweet spot. Another not is to be careful when dividing by 2 when you have to move in the same direction more than once in a row.
#user1907531: First of all , if you are participating in an online contest of such importance at national level , you should refrain from doing this cheap tricks and methodologies to get ahead of other deserving guys. Second, a cheater like you is always a cheater but all this hampers the hard work of those who have put in making the questions and the competitors who are unlike you. Thirdly, if #trumetlicks asks you why haven't you tagged the ques as homework , you tell another lie there.And finally, I don't know how could so many people answer this question this cheater asked without knowing the origin/website/source of this question. This surely can't be given by a teacher for homework in any Indian school. To tell everyone this cheater has asked you the complete solution of a running collegiate contest in India 6 hours before the contest ended and he has surely got a lot of direct helps and top of that invited 100's others to cheat from the answers given here. So, good luck to all these cheaters .
int maxValue = m[0][0];
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < N; j++)
{
if ( m[i][j] >maxValue )
{
maxValue = m[i][j];
}
}
}
cout<<maxValue<<endl;
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < N; j++)
{
sum = sum + m[i][j];
}
}
cout<< sum <<endl;
For the above mentioned code I got O(n2) as the execution time growth
They way I got it was by:
MAX [O(1) , O(n2), O(1) , O(1) , O(n2), O(1)]
both O(n2) is for for loops. Is this calculation correct?
If I change this code as:
int maxValue = m[0][0];
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < N; j++)
{
if ( m[i][j] > maxValue )
{
maxValue = m[i][j];
}
sum += m[i][j];
}
}
cout<<maxValue<<endl;
cout<< sum <<endl;
Still Big O would be O(n2) right?
So does that mean Big O just an indication on how time will grow according to the input data size? and not how algorithm written?
This feels a bit like a homework question to me, but...
Big-Oh is about the algorithm, and specifically how the number of steps performed (or the amount of memory used) by the algorithm grows as the size of the input data grows.
In your case, you are taking N to be the size of the input, and it's confusing because you have a two-dimensional array, NxN. So really, since your algorithm only makes one or two passes over this data, you could call it O(n), where in this case n is the size of your two-dimensional input.
But to answer the heart of your question, your first code makes two passes over the data, and your second code does the same work in a single pass. However, the idea of Big-Oh is that it should give you the order of growth, which means independent of exactly how fast a particular computer runs. So, it might be that my computer is twice as fast as yours, so I can run your first code in about the same time as you run the second code. So we want to ignore those kinds of differences and say that both algorithms make a fixed number of passes over the data, so for the purposes of "order of growth", one pass, two passes, three passes, it doesn't matter. It's all about the same as one pass.
It's probably easier to think about this without thinking about the NxN input. Just think about a single list of N numbers, and say you want to do something to it, like find the max value, or sort the list. If you have 100 items in your list, you can find the max in 100 steps, and if you have 1000 items, you can do it in 1000 steps. So the order of growth is linear with the size of the input: O(n). On the other hand, if you want to sort it, you might write an algorithm that makes roughly a full pass over the data each time it finds the next item to be inserted, and it has to do that roughly once for each element in the list, so that's making n passes over your list of length n, so that's O(n^2). If you have 100 items in your list, that's roughly 10^4 steps, and if you have 1000 items in your list that's roughly 10^6 steps. So the idea is that those numbers grow really fast in comparison to the size of your input, so even if I have a much faster computer (e.g., a model 10 years better than yours), I might be able to to beat you in the max problem even with a list 2 or 10 or even 100 or 1000 times as long. But for the sorting problem with a O(n^2) algorithm, I won't be able to beat you when I try to take on a list that's 100 or 1000 times as long, even with a computer 10 or 20 years better than yours. That's the idea of Big-Oh, to factor out those "relatively unimportant" speed differences and be able to see what amount of work, in a more general/theoretical sense, a given algorithm does on a given input size.
Of course, in real life, it may make a huge difference to you that one computer is 100 times faster than another. If you are trying to solve a particular problem with a fixed maximum input size, and your code is running at 1/10 the speed that your boss is demanding, and you get a new computer that runs 10 times faster, your problem is solved without needing to write a better algorithm. But the point is that if you ever wanted to handle larger (much larger) data sets, you couldn't just wait for a faster computer.
The big O notation is an upper bound to the maximum amount of time taken to execute the algorithm based on the input size. So basically two algorithms can have slightly varying maximum running time but same big O notation.
what you need to understand is that for a running time function that is linear based on input size will have big o notation as o(n) and a quadratic function will always have big o notation as o(n^2).
so if your running time is just n, that is one linear pass, big o notation stays o(n) and if your running time is 6n+c that is 6 linear passes and a constant time c it still is o(n).
Now in the above case the second code is more optimized as the number of times you need to make the skip to memory locations for the loop is less. and hence this will give a better execution. but both the code would still have the asymptotic running time as o(n^2).
Yes, it's O(N^2) in both cases. Of course O() time complexity depends on how you have written your algorithm, but both the versions above are O(N^2). However, note that actually N^2 is the size of your input data (it's an N x N matrix), so this would be better characterized as a linear time algorithm O(n) where n is the size of the input, i.e. n = N x N.