I'm having trouble understanding the meaning of a function f(x) representing the number of operations performed in some code.
int sum = 0; // + 1
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
for (int j = 1; j <= i; j++)
sum = sum + 1; // n * (n + 1) / 2
(Please note that there is no 2 in the numerator on that last comment, but there is in the function below.)
Then my notes say that f(x) = 2n(n + 1) / 2 + 1 = O(n^2)
I understand that because there are two for loops, that whatever f(x) is, it will be = O(n^2), but why is the time estimate what it is? How does the j<= i give you n*(n+1)? What about the 2 in the denominator?
Think about, across the entire execution of this code, how many times the inner loop will run. Notice that
when i = 0, it runs zero times;
when i = 1, it runs one time;
when i = 2, it runs two times;
when i = 3, it runs three times;
...; and
when i = n - 1, it runs n - 1 times.
This means that the total number of times the innermost loop runs is given by
0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... + (n - 1)
This is a famous summation and it solves to
0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... + (n - 1) = n(n - 1) / 2
This is the n - 1st triangular number and it's worth committing this to memory.
The number given - n(n + 1) / 2 - seems to be incorrect, but it's pretty close to the true number. I think they assumed the loop would run 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n times rather than 0 + 1 + 2 + ... + n - 1 times.
From this it's a bit easier to see where the O(n2) term comes from. Notice that n(n - 1) / 2 = n2 / 2 - n / 2, so in big-O land where we drop constants and low-order terms we're left with n2.
Related
I have this program that, when run, has prints in this pattern:
a(0) = 0
a(1) = 1
a(2) = 2 + a(1) = 3
a(3) = 3 + a(2) + a(1) = 3 + 3 + 1 = 7
a(4) = 4 + 3 + 3 + 1 = 15
At this point I observe that there is a pattern of it becoming O(2^n - 1). However, I am not sure if this is a valid proof by induction. An idea I had was:
a(n)= n + a(n-1) + a(n-2) + ... + 1 = 2^n - 1
But from here the pattern for the terms are not very clear to me. I know the first term is n (in our code, this is due to a for loop that prints a statement n times), and due to recursion I know I will be summing the previous values but I don't know what a(n-1), a(n-2), etc. are in terms of n.
Given a pyramid like:
0
1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8 9
...
and given the index of the pyramid i where i represents the ith number of the pyramid, is there a way to find the index of the row to which the ith element belongs? (e.g. if i = 6,7,8,9, it is in the 3rd row, starting from row 0)
There's a connection between the row numbers and the triangular numbers. The nth triangular number, denoted Tn, is given by Tn = n(n-1)/2. The first couple triangular numbers are 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, etc., and if you'll notice, the starts of each row are given by the nth triangular number (the fact that they come from this triangle is where this name comes from.)
So really, the goal here is to determine the largest n such that Tn ≤ i. Without doing any clever math, you could solve this in time O(√n) by just computing T0, T1, T2, etc. until you find something bigger than i. Even better, you could binary search for it in time O(log n) by computing T1, T2, T4, T8, etc. until you overshoot, then binary searching on the range you found.
Alternatively, we could try to solve for this directly. Suppose we want to find the choice of n such that
n(n + 1) / 2 = i
Expanding, we get
n2 / 2 + n / 2 = i.
Equivalently,
n2 / 2 + n / 2 - i = 0,
or, more easily:
n2 + n - 2i = 0.
Now we use the quadratic formula:
n = (-1 ± √(1 + 8i)) / 2
The negative root we can ignore, so the value of n we want is
n = (-1 + √(1 + 8i)) / 2.
This number won't necessarily be an integer, so to find the row you want, we just round down:
row = ⌊(-1 + √(1 + 8i)) / 2⌋.
In code:
int row = int((-1 + sqrt(1 + 8 * i)) / 2);
Let's confirm that this works by testing it out a bit. Where does 9 go? Well, we have
(-1 + √(1 + 72)) / 2 = (-1 + √73) / 2 = 3.77
Rounding down, we see it goes in row 3 - which is correct!
Trying another one, where does 55 go? Well,
(-1 + √(1 + 440)) / 2 = (√441 - 1) / 2 = 10
So it should go in row 10. The tenth triangular number is T10 = 55, so in fact, 55 starts off that row. Looks like it works!
I get row = math.floor (√(2i + 0.25) - 0.5) where i is your number
Essentially the same as the guy above but I reduced n2 + n to (n + 0.5)2 - 0.25
I think ith element belongs nth row where n is number of n(n+1)/2 <= i < (n+1)(n+2)/2
For example, if i = 6, then n = 3 because n(n+1)/2 <= 6
and if i = 8, then n = 3 because n(n+1)/2 <= 8
So my problem is the following:
Given a number X of size and an A (1st number), B(Last number) interval, I have to find the number of all different kind of non decreasing combinations (increasing or null combinations) that I can build.
Example:
Input: "2 9 11"
X = 2 | A = 9 | B = 11
Output: 8
Possible Combinations ->
[9],[9,9],[9,10],[9,11],[10,10],[10,11],[11,11],[10],[11].
Now, If it was the same input, but with a different X, line X = 4, this would change a lot...
[9],[9,9],[9,9,9],[9,9,9,9],[9,9,9,10],[9,9,9,11],[9,9,10,10]...
Your problem can be reformulated to simplify to just two parameters
X and N = B - A + 1 to give you sequences starting with 0 instead of A.
If you wanted exactly X numbers in each item, it is simple combination with repetition and the equation for that would be
x_of_n = (N + X - 1)! / ((N - 1)! * X!)
so for your first example it would be
X = 2
N = 11 - 9 + 1 = 3
x_of_n = 4! / (2! * 2!) = 4*3*2 / 2*2 = 6
to this you need to add the same with X = 1 to get x_of_n = 3, so you get the required total 9.
I am not aware of simple equation for the required output, but when you expand all the equations to one sum, there is a nice recursive sequence, where you compute next (N,X) from (N,X-1) and sum all the elements:
S[0] = N
S[1] = S[0] * (N + 1) / 2
S[2] = S[1] * (N + 2) / 3
...
S[X-1] = S[X-2] * (N + X - 1) / X
so for the second example you give we have
X = 4, N = 3
S[0] = 3
S[1] = 3 * 4 / 2 = 6
S[2] = 6 * 5 / 3 = 10
S[3] = 10 * 6 / 4 = 15
output = sum(S) = 3 + 6 + 10 + 15 = 34
so you can try the code here:
function count(x, a, b) {
var i,
n = b - a + 1,
s = 1,
total = 0;
for (i = 0; i < x; i += 1) {
s *= (n + i) / (i + 1); // beware rounding!
total += s;
}
return total;
}
console.log(count(2, 9, 11)); // 9
console.log(count(4, 9, 11)); // 34
Update: If you use a language with int types (JS has only double),
you need to use s = s * (n + i) / (i + 1) instead of *= operator to avoid temporary fractional number and subsequent rounding problems.
Update 2: For a more functional version, you can use a recursive definition
function count(x, n) {
return n < 1 || x < 1 ? 0 : 1 + count(n - 1, x) + count(n, x - 1);
}
where n = b - a + 1
I'm trying to calculate the total number of times the innermost statement is executed.
count = 0;
for i = 1 to n
for j = 1 to n - i
count = count + 1
I figured that the most the loop can execute is O(n*n-i) = O(n^2). I wanted to prove this by using double summation but I'm getting lost since the I'm having trouble starting the equation since j = 1 is thrown into there.
Can someone help me explain this to me?
Thanks
For each i, the inner loop executes n - i times (n is constant). Therefore (since i ranges from 1 to n), to determine the total number of times the innermost statement is executed, we must evaluate the sum
(n - 1) + (n - 2) + (n - 3) + ... + (n - n)
By rearranging the terms (grouping all the ns that appear first), we can see that this is equal to
n*n - (1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n) = n*n - n(n+1)/2 = n*(n-1)/2 = n*n/2 - n/2
Here's a simple implementation in Python to verify this:
def f(n):
count = 0;
for i in range(1, n + 1):
for _ in range(1, n - i + 1):
count = count + 1
return count
for n in range(1,11):
print n, '\t', f(n), '\t', n*n/2 - n/2
Output:
1 0 0
2 1 1
3 3 3
4 6 6
5 10 10
6 15 15
7 21 21
8 28 28
9 36 36
10 45 45
The first column is n, the second is the number of times that inner statement is executed, and the third is n*n/2 - n/2.
I have this recurrence formula:
P(n) = ( P(n-1) + 2^(n/2) ) % (X)
s.t. P(1) = 2;
where n/2 is computer integer division i.e. floor of x/2
Since i am taking mod X, this relation should repeat at least with in X outputs.
but it can start repeating before that.
How to find this value?
It needn't repeat within x terms, consider x = 3:
P(1) = 2
P(2) = (P(1) + 2^(2/2)) % 3 = 4 % 3 = 1
P(3) = (P(2) + 2^(3/2)) % 3 = (1 + 2) % 3 = 0
P(4) = (P(3) + 2^(4/2)) % 3 = 4 % 3 = 1
P(5) = (P(4) + 2^(5/2)) % 3 = (1 + 4) % 3 = 2
P(6) = (P(5) + 2^(6/2)) % 3 = (2 + 8) % 3 = 1
P(7) = (P(6) + 2^(7/2)) % 3 = (1 + 8) % 3 = 0
P(8) = (P(7) + 2^(8/2)) % 3 = 16 % 3 = 1
P(9) = (P(8) + 2^(9/2)) % 3 = (1 + 16) % 3 = 2
P(10) = (P(9) + 2^(10/2)) % 3 = (2 + 32) % 3 = 1
P(11) = (P(10) + 2^(11/2)) % 3 = (1 + 32) % 3 = 0
P(12) = (P(11) + 2^(12/2)) % 3 = (0 + 64) % 3 = 1
and you see that the period is 4.
Generally (suppose X is odd, it's a bit more involved for even X), let k be the period of 2 modulo X, i.e. k > 0, 2^k % X = 1, and k is minimal with these properties (see below).
Consider all arithmetic modulo X. Then
n
P(n) = 2 + ∑ 2^(j/2)
j=2
It is easier to see when we separately consider odd and even n:
m m
P(2*m+1) = 2 + 2 * ∑ 2^i = 2 * ∑ 2^i = 2*(2^(m+1) - 1) = 2^((n+2)/2) + 2^((n+1)/2) - 2
i=1 i=0
since each 2^j appears twice, for j = 2*i and j = 2*i+1. For even n = 2*m, there's one summand 2^m missing, so
P(2*m) = 2^(m+1) + 2^m - 2 = 2^((n+2)/2) + 2^((n+1)/2) - 2
and we see that the length of the period is 2*k, since the changing parts 2^((n+1)/2) and 2^((n+2)/2) have that period. The period immediately begins, there is no pre-period part (there can be a pre-period for even X).
Now k <= φ(X) by Euler's generalisation of Fermat's theorem, so the period is at most 2 * φ(X).
(φ is Euler's totient function, i.e. φ(n) is the number of integers 1 <= k <= n with gcd(n,k) = 1.)
What makes it possible that the period is longer than X is that P(n+1) is not completely determined by P(n), the value of n also plays a role in determining P(n+1), in this case the dependence is simple, each power of 2 being used twice in succession doubles the period of the pure powers of 2.
Consider the sequence a[k] = (2^k) % X for odd X > 1. It has the simple recurrence
a[0] = 1
a[k+1] = (2 * a[k]) % X
so each value completely determines the next, thus the entire following part of the sequence. (Since X is assumed odd, it also determines the previous value [if k > 0] and thus the entire previous part of the sequence. With H = (X+1)/2, we have a[k-1] = (H * a[k]) % X.)
Hence if the sequence assumes one value twice (and since there are only X possible values, that must happen within the first X+1 values), at indices i and j = i+p > i, say, the sequence repeats and we have a[k+p] = a[k] for all k >= i. For odd X, we can go back in the sequence, therefore a[k+p] = a[k] also holds for 0 <= k < i. Thus the first value that occurs twice in the sequence is a[0] = 1.
Let p be the smallest positive integer with a[p] = 1. Then p is the length of the smallest period of the sequence a, and a[k] = 1 if and only if k is a multiple of p, thus the set of periods of a is the set of multiples of p. Euler's theorem says that a[φ(X)] = 1, from that we can conclude that p is a divisor of φ(X), in particular p <= φ(X) < X.
Now back to the original sequence.
P(n) = 2 + a[1] + a[1] + a[2] + a[2] + ... + a[n/2]
= a[0] + a[0] + a[1] + a[1] + a[2] + a[2] + ... + a[n/2]
Since each a[k] is used twice in succession, it is natural to examine the subsequences for even and odd indices separately,
E[m] = P(2*m)
O[m] = P(2*m+1)
then the transition from one value to the next is more regular. For the even indices we find
E[m+1] = E[m] + a[m] + a[m+1] = E[m] + 3*a[m]
and for the odd indices
O[m+1] = O[m] + a[m+1] + a[m+1] = O[m] + 2*a[m+1]
Now if we ignore the modulus for the moment, both E and O are geometric sums, so there's an easy closed formula for the terms. They have been given above (in slightly different form),
E[m] = 3 * 2^m - 2 = 3 * a[m] - 2
O[m] = 2 * 2^(m+1) - 2 = 2 * a[m+1] - 2 = a[m+2] - 2
So we see that O has the same (minimal) period as a, namely p, and E also has that period. Unless maybe if X is divisible by 3, that is also the minimal (positive) period of E (if X is divisible by 3, the minimal positive period of E could be a proper divisor of p, for X = 3 e.g., E is constant).
Thus we see that 2*p is a period of the sequence P obtained by interlacing E and O.
It remains to be seen that 2*p is the minimal positive period of P. Let m be the minimal positive period. Then m is a divisor of 2*p.
Suppose m were odd, m = 2*j+1. Then
P(1) = P(m+1) = P(2*m+1)
P(2) = P(m+2) = P(2*m+2)
and consequently
P(2) - P(1) = P(m+2) - P(m+1) = P(2*m+2) - P(2*m+1)
But P(2) - P(1) = a[1] and
P(m+2) - P(m+1) = a[(m+2)/2] = a[j+1]
P(2*m+2) - P(2*m+1) = a[(2*m+2)/2] = a[m+1] = a[2*j+2]
So we must have a[1] = a[j+1], hence j is a period of a, and a[j+1] = a[2*j+2], hence j+1 is a period of a too. But that means that 1 is a period of a, which implies X = 1, a contradiction.
Therefore m is even, m = 2*j. But then j is a period of O (and of E), thus a multiple of p. On the other hand, m <= 2*p implies j <= p, and the only (positive) multiple of p satisfying that inequality is p itself, hence j = p, m = 2*p.