Is this recurrence relation O(infinity)?
T(n) = 49*T(n/7) + n
There are no base conditions given.
I tried solving using master's theorem and the answer is Theta(n^2). But when solving with recurrence tree, the solution comes to be an infinite series, of n*(7 + 7^2 + 7^3 +...)
Can someone please help?
Let n = 7^m. The recurrence becomes
T(7^m) = 49 T(7^(m-1)) + 7^m,
or
S(m) = 49 S(m-1) + 7^m.
The homogeneous part gives
S(m) = C 49^m
and the general solution is
S(m) = C 49^m - 7^m / 6
i.e.
T(n) = C n² - n / 6 = (T(1) + 1 / 6) n² - n / 6.
If you try the recursion method:
T(n) = 7^2 T(n/7) + n = 7^2 [7^2 T(n/v^2) + n/7] + n = 7^4 T(n/7^2) + 7n + n
= ... = 7^(2i) * T(n/7^i) + n * [7^0 + 7^1 + 7^2 + ... + 7^(i-1)]
When the i grows n/7^i gets closer to 1 and as mentioned in the other answer, T(1) is a constant. So if we assume T(1) = 1, then:
T(n/7^i) = 1
n/7^i = 1 => i = log_7 (n)
So
T(n) = 7^(2*log_7 (n)) * T(1) + n * [7^0 + 7^1 + 7^2 + ... + 7^(log_7(n)-1)]
=> T(n) = n^2 + n * [1+7+7^2+...+(n-1)] = n^2 + c*n = theta(n^2)
Usually, when no base case is provided for a recurrence relation, the assumption is that the base case is something T(1) = 1 or something along those lines. That way, the recursion eventually terminates.
Something to think about - you can only get an infinite series from your recursion tree if the recursion tree is infinitely deep. Although no base case was specified in the problem, you can operate under the assumption that there is one and that the recursion stops when the input gets sufficiently small for some definition of "sufficiently small." Based on that, at what point does the recursion stop? From there, you should be able to convert your infinite series into a series of finite length, which then will give you your answer.
Hope this helps!
Related
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).
The running time for this recurrence relation is O(nlogn). Since I am new to algorithm how would I show that mathematically?
T(n) = 2⋅T(n/2) + O(n)
T(n) = 2 ( 2⋅T(n/4) + O(n) ) + O(n) // since T(n/2) = 2⋅T(n/4) + O(n)
So far I can see that if I suppose n to be a power of 2 like n = 2m, then may be I can show that, but I am not getting the clear picture. Can anyone help me?
If you use the master theorem, you get the result you expected.
If you want to proof this "by hand", you can see this easily by supposing n = 2m is a power of 2 (as you already said). This leads you to
T(n) = 2⋅T(n/2) + O(n)
= 2⋅(2⋅T(n/4) + O(n/2)) + O(n)
= 4⋅T(n/4) + 2⋅O(n/2) + O(n)
= 4⋅(2⋅T(n/8) + O(n/4)) + 2⋅O(n/2) + O(n)
= Σk=1,...,m 2k⋅O(n/2k)
= Σk=1,...,m O(n)
= m⋅O(n)
Since m = log₂(n), you can write this as O(n log n).
At the end it doesn't matter if n is a power of 2 or not.
To see this, you can think about this: You have an input of n (which is not a power of 2) and you add more elements to the input until it contains n' = 2m Elements with m ∈ ℕ and log(n) ≤ m ≤ log(n) + 1, i.e. n' is the smalest power of 2 that is greater than n. Obviously T(n) ≤ T(n') holds and we know T(n') is in
O(n'⋅log(n')) = O(c⋅n⋅log(c⋅n)) = O(n⋅log(n) + n⋅log(c)) = O(n⋅log(n))
where c is a constant between 1 and 2.
You can do the same with the greatest power of 2 that is smaller than n. This gives leads you to T(n) ≥ T(n'') and we know T(n'') is in
O(n''⋅log(n'')) = O(c⋅n⋅log(c⋅n)) = O(n⋅log(n))
where c is a constant between 1/2 and 1.
In total you get, that the complexity of T(n) is bounded by the complexitys of T(n'') and T(n') wich are both O(n⋅log(n))and so T(n) is also in O(n⋅log(n)), even if it is not a power of 2.
In our Data Structures class we are learning how to solve recurrence relations in 1 variable. Unfortunately some things seem to come "out of the blue".
For example, some exercises already tell you how to substitute the variable n:
Compute T(n) for n = 2^k
T(n) = a for n =< 2
T(n) = 8T(n/2) + bn^2 (a and b are > 0)
But some exercises just give you the T(n) without providing a replacement for the variable n:
T(n) = 1 n =<1
T(n) = 2T(n/4) + sqrt(n)
I used the iterative method and arrived to the right answer: sqrt(n) + (1/2) * sqrt(n) * Log(n).
But when the professor explained she started by saying: "Let n = 4^k", which is what I mean by "out of the blue". Using that fact the answer is simpler to obtain.
But how is the student supposed to come up with that?
This is another example:
T(n) = 1 n =<1
T(n) = 2T( (n-1)/2 ) + n
Here I started again with the iterative method but I can't reach a definitive answer, it looks more complex that way.
After 3 iterative steps I arrived to this:
T(n) = 4T( (n-2)/4 ) + 2n - 1
T(n) = 8T( (n-3)/8 ) + 3n - 3
T(n) = 16T( (n-4)/16 ) + 4n - 6
I am inclined to say T(i) = 2^i * T( (n-i)/2^i ) + i*n - ? This last part I can't figure out, maybe I made a mistake.
However in the answer she provides she starts again with another substitution: Let n = (2^k) -1. I don’t see where this comes from - why would I do this? What is the logic behind that?
In all of these cases, these substitutions are reasonable because they rewrite the recurrence as one of the form S(k) = aS(k - 1) + f(k). These recurrences are often easier to solve than other recurrences because they define S(k) purely in terms of S(k - 1).
Let's do some examples to see how this works. Consider this recurrence:
T(n) = 1 (if n ≤ 1)
T(n) = 2T(n/4) + sqrt(n) (otherwise)
Here, the size of the problem shrinks by a factor of four on each iteration. Therefore, if the input is a perfect power of four, then the input will shrink from size 4k to 4k-1, from 4k-1 to 4k-2, etc. until the recursion bottoms out. If we make this substitution and let S(k) = T(4k), then we get hat
S(0) = 1
S(k) = 2S(k - 1) + 2k
This is now a recurrence relation where S(k) is defined in terms of S(k - 1), which can make the recurrence easier to solve.
Let's look at your original recurrence:
T(n) = a (for n ≤ 2)
T(n) = 8T(n/2) + bn2
Notice that the recursive step divides n by two. If n is a perfect power of two, then the recursive step considers the power of two that comes right before n. Letting S(k) = T(2k) gives
S(k) = a (for k ≤ 1)
S(k) = 8S(k - 1) + b22k
Notice how that S(k) is defined in terms of S(k - 1), which is a much easier recurrence to solve. The choice of powers of two was "natural" here because it made the recursive step talk purely about the previous value of S and not some arbitrarily smaller value of S.
Now, look at the last recurrence:
T(n) = 1 (n ≤ 1)
T(n) = 2T( (n-1)/2 ) + n
We'd like to make some substitution k = f(n) such that T(f(n)) = 2T(f(n) - 1) + n. The question is how to do that.
With some trial and error, we get that setting f(n) = 2n - 1 fits the bill, since
(f(n) - 1) / 2 = ((2n - 1) - 1) / 2 = (2n - 2) / 2 = 2n-1 - 1 = f(n) - 1
Therefore, letting k = 2n - 1 and setting S(k) = T(2n - 1), we get
S(n) = 1 (if n ≤ 1)
S(n) = 2S(n - 1) + 2n - 1
Hope this helps!
How would I go about solving this kind of recurrence using the Master Theorem?
T(n) = 4T(n/2) + n2 + logn
I have no idea how to go about doing this, but I'm pretty sure it is possible to solve it using Master Theorem. Do I have to ignore one of the terms? Any help is appreciated, thanks.
The Master Theorem works for functions that can be written as
T(n) = aT(n / b) + f(n)
Here, you have that a = 4, b = 2, and f(n) = n2 + log n. Notice that we're grouping "n2 + log n" together as the f(n) term, rather than treating it as two separate terms.
Now that we've done that, we can apply the Master Theorem directly. Notice that logb a = log2 4 = 2 and that f(n) = Θ(n2), so by the Master Theorem this solves to Θ(n2 log n). The reason this works is that n2 + log n = Θ(n2), and the Master Theorem only cares about the asymptotic complexity of f(n). In fact, any of these recurrences can be solved the same way:
T(n) = 4T(n / 2) + n2 + 137n + 42
T(n) = 4T(n / 2) + 5n2 + 42n log n + 42n + 5 log n + 106
T(n) = 4T(n / 2) + 0.5n2 + n log137 n + n log n + n2 / log n + 5
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.