I have tried recursion-tree but failed. I also could not solve the problem using math skills...and the Master theorem also seemed unavailable.
If we only define T(1) then we always have T(2) = 1 regardless of what T(1) is. So the answer is T(n) = 1 it comes from the fact that if T(n-1) = 1 then T(n) = [(n-2) * 1 + 2]/n = 1.
So let us suppose T starts from 2 rather than 1. Consider multiple scenarios :
T(2) > 1 : Then for n>2 we have T(n) < T(n - 1), also T(n) > 1 so limit T(n) = 1 :
because if T(n-1) > 1 then T(n) = [(n-2) * T(n-1) + 2]/n we have : T(n-1) > 1 so [(n-2) * T(n-1) + 2]/n > n/n = 1. Also (n-2) * T(n) + 2 T(n) = (n-2) T(n-1) + 2 and we have T(n) > 1 so : (n-2) * (T(n) - T(n-1)) = 2 * (1 - T(n)) < 0 so T(n) - T(n-1) < 0 so T(n) < T(n-1).
You have to prove there are no boundaries other than 1.
T(2) < 1 (including negatives) : Using a similar approach to the one mentioned above(not exact) you could argue that for n>2 we have T(n) > T(n-1) and T(n) < 1. And again prove that limit T(n) = 1.
T(2) = 1 : As I mentioned above if T(2) = 1 then T(n) = 1.
PS: I didn't provide a complete solution because it seems to be homework. I hope you can figure out the rest.
Related
I'm trying to find the big O of T(n) = 2T(n/2) + 1. I figured out that it is O(n) with the Master Theorem but I'm trying to solve it with recursion and getting stuck.
My solving process is
T(n) = 2T(n/2) + 1 <= c * n
(we know that T(n/2) <= c * n/2)
2T(n/2) + 1 <= 2 * c * n/2 +1 <= c * n
Now I get that 1 <= 0.
I thought about saying that
T(n/2) <= c/2 * n/2
But is it right to do so? I don't know if I've seen it before so I'm pretty stuck.
I'm not sure what you mean by "solve it with recursion". What you can do is to unroll the equation.
So first you can think of n as a power of 2: n = 2^k.
Then you can rewrite your recurrence equation as T(2^k) = 2T(2^(k-1)) + 1.
Now it is easy to unroll this:
T(2^k) = 2 T(2^(k-1)) + 1
= 2 (T(2^(k-2) + 1) + 1
= 2 (2 (T(2^(k-3) + 1) + 1) + 1
= 2 (2 (2 (T(2^(k-4) + 1) + 1) + 1) + 1
= ...
This goes down to k = 0 and hits the base case T(1) = a. In most cases one uses a = 0 or a = 1 for exercises, but it could be anything.
If we now get rid of the parentheses the equation looks like this:
T(n) = 2^k * a + 2^k + 2^(k-1) + 2^(k-2) + ... + 2^1 + 2^0
From the beginning we know that 2^k = n and we know 2^k + ... + 2 + 1 = 2^(k+1) -1. See this as a binary number consisting of only 1s e.g. 111 = 1000 - 1.
So this simplifies to
T(n) = 2^k * a + 2^(k+1) - 1
= 2^k * a + 2 * 2^k - 1
= n * a + 2 * n - 1
= n * (2 + a) - 1
And now one can see that T(n) is in O(n) as long as a is a constant.
I have a Computer Science Midterm tomorrow and I need help determining the complexity of a particular recursive function as below, which is much complicated than the stuffs I've already worked on: it has two variables
T(n) = 3 + mT(n-m)
In simpler cases where m is a constant, the formula can be easily obtained by writing unpacking the relation; however, in this case, unpacking doesn't make the life easier as follows (let's say T(0) = c):
T(n) = 3 + mT(n-m)
T(n-1) = 3 + mT(n-m-1)
T(n-2) = 3 + mT(n-m-2)
...
Obviously, there's no straightforward elimination according to these inequalities. So, I'm wondering whether or not I should use another technique for such cases.
Don't worry about m - this is just a constant parameter. However you're unrolling your recursion incorrectly. Each step of unrolling involves three operations:
Taking value of T with argument value, which is m less
Multiplying it by m
Adding constant 3
So, it will look like this:
T(n) = m * T(n - m) + 3 = (Step 1)
= m * (m * T(n - 2*m) + 3) + 3 = (Step 2)
= m * (m * (m * T(n - 3*m) + 3) + 3) + 3 = ... (Step 3)
and so on. Unrolling T(n) up to step k will be given by following formula:
T(n) = m^k * T(n - k*m) + 3 * (1 + m + m^2 + m^3 + ... + m^(k-1))
Now you set n - k*m = 0 to use the initial condition T(0) and get:
k = n / m
Now you need to use a formula for the sum of geometric progression - and finally you'll get a closed formula for the T(n) (I'm leaving that final step to you).
How is the following recurrence relation solved:
T(n) = 2T(n-2)+O(1)
What I have tried so far is:
O(1) is lower or equal than a constant c.
So
T(n) <= 2T(n-2) + c
T(n) <= 4T(n-4) + 2c
T(n) <= 8T(n-6) + 3c
.
.
.
So a pattern is emerging... the general term is:
T(n) <= 2^k*T(n-2k) + kc
But I dont know how to continue from there.Any advice is appreciated.
Assuming your generalization for k is true[1]
T(n) <= 2^k*T(n-2k) + kc
For k=n/2 you get:
T(n) <= 2^n/2 * T(0) + n/2 * c = 2^(n/2) + n/2*c
Which is in O(sqrt(2^n))
Formal proof can be done with induction, with the induction hypothesis of:
T(n) <= 2^(n/2) + c*n
And step of:
T(n) = 2T(n-2) + c = (induction hypothesis)
T(n) = 2* 2^((n-2)/2) + (n-2)*c + c
T(n) = 2^ (n/2 - 2/2 + 1) + (n-1)*c
And indeed:
T(n) = 2^(n/2) + (n-1)*c <= 2^(n/2) + c*n
(1) It is not, it ignores the fact that the constant is multiplied in the loop.
I am trying to calculate the value of the running time at the worst case for a function whose worst-case runtime is given by this recurrence:
T(0) = 0
T(n) = n + T(n - 1) (if n > 0)
Does anyone have any advice how to do this? I don't see how to solve this.
It might help to try expanding out the recurrence to see if you spot a pattern:
T(0) = 0
T(1) = 1 + T(0) = 1 + 0
T(2) = 2 + T(1) = 2 + 1 + 0
T(3) = 3 + T(2) = 3 + 2 + 1 + 0
Based on this pattern, it looks like T(n) = 0 + 1 + 2 + ... + n. This is a famous summation worked out by Gauss, and it solves to n(n+1)/2. Therefore, we could conjecture that T(n) = n(n+1)/2.
You can formalize this by proving it by induction. As a base case, T(0) = 0 = 0(0+1)/2, so everything checks out. For the inductive step, assume T(n) = n(n+1)/2. Then T(n+1) = (n+1) + T(n) = (n+1) + n(n+1)/2 = (n+1) (1 + n / 2) = (n+1)(n+2)/2 = ((n+1))((n+1) + 1) / 2, which checks out as well.
Therefore, your exact value is T(n) = n(n+1)/2.
Hope this helps!
I am having trouble understanding the concept of recurrences. Given you have T(n) = 2T(n/2) +1 how do you calculate the complexity of this relationship? I know in mergesort, the relationship is T(n) = 2T(n/2) + cn and you can see that you have a tree with depth log2^n and cn work at each level. But I am unsure how to proceed given a generic function. Any tutorials available that can clearly explain this?
The solution to your recurrence is T(n) ∈ Θ(n).
Let's expand the formula:
T(n) = 2*T(n/2) + 1. (Given)
T(n/2) = 2*T(n/4) + 1. (Replace n with n/2)
T(n/4) = 2*T(n/8) + 1. (Replace n with n/4)
T(n) = 2*(2*T(n/4) + 1) + 1 = 4*T(n/4) + 2 + 1. (Substitute)
T(n) = 2*(2*(2*T(n/8) + 1) + 1) + 1 = 8*T(n/8) + 4 + 2 + 1. (Substitute)
And do some observations and analysis:
We can see a pattern emerge: T(n) = 2k * T(n/2k) + (2k − 1).
Now, let k = log2 n. Then n = 2k.
Substituting, we get: T(n) = n * T(n/n) + (n − 1) = n * T(1) + n − 1.
For at least one n, we need to give T(n) a concrete value. So we suppose T(1) = 1.
Therefore, T(n) = n * 1 + n − 1 = 2*n − 1, which is in Θ(n).
Resources:
https://www.cs.duke.edu/courses/spring05/cps100/notes/slides07-4up.pdf
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~ola/ap/recurrence.html
However, for routine work, the normal way to solve these recurrences is to use the Master theorem.