I am not able to figure out. space complexity of one of my program.
its coming out as follows but i am not sure if it is O(n ^3), or O(n^4)
1*n + 2*(n-1) + 3*(n-2) + ..+ (n-1) *(2) + n *1
as I understand 1+ 2 + 3 + ....+ n = n*(n-1)/2
and here we have two of them , so i was wondering if it will be O(n^4)
It is O(n3).
I have computed the first five elements of this sequence:
n=1 -> 1
n=2 -> 4
n=3 -> 10
n=4 -> 20
n=5 -> 35
The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences® (OEIS®)
says that these are the Tetrahedral (or triangular pyramidal) numbers: a(n) = C(n+2,3) = n*(n+1)*(n+2)/6.
Of course, this is not a proof. You should check by induction whether your sum does satisfies this relation.
Related
I want to implement a simproc capable of rewriting the argument of sin into a linear combination x + k * pi + k' * pi / 2 (where ideally k' = 0 or k' = 1) and then apply existing lemmas about additions of arguments in sines.
The steps could be as follows:
Pattern match the goal to extract the argument of sin(expr):
fun dest_sine t =
case t of
(#{term "(sin):: real ⇒ real"} $ t') => t'
| _ => raise TERM ("dest_sine", [t]) ;
Prove that for some x, k, k': expr = x + k*pi + k' * pi/2.
Use existing lemmas to rewrite to a simpler trigonometric function:
fun rewriter x k k' =
if (k mod 2 = 0 andalso k' = 0) then #{term "sin"} $ x
else if (k mod 2 = 0 andalso k' = 1) then #{term "cos"} $ x
else if (k mod 2 = 1 andalso k' = 0) then #{term "-sin"} $ x
else #{term "-cos"} $ x
I'm stuck at step two. The idea is to use algebra simplifications to obtain the x,k,k' where the theorem holds. I believe schematic goals should do this but I haven't ever used them.
My thoughts
Could I rather assume that the expression is of this form and let the simplifier find it so that the simproc can be triggered?
If I first start assuming the linear form x + k*pi + k' * pi/2 then:
Extract x,k,k' from this combination.
Apply rewriter and obtain the corresponding term to be rewritten two.
Apply in a sequence: rules dealing with + pi/2, rules dealing with + 2 pi
I would start easy and ignore the pi / 2 part for now.
You probably want to build a simproc that matches on anything of the form sin x. Then you want to write a conversion that takes that term x (which is assumed to be a sum of several terms) and brings it into the form a + of_int b * p.
A conversion is essentially a function of type cterm → thm which takes a cterm ct and returns a theorem of the form ct ≡ …, i.e. it's a form of deterministic rewriting (a conversion can also fail by throwing a CTERM exception, by convention). There are a lot of combinators for building and using these in Pure/conv.ML.
This is probably a bit fiddly. You essentially have to descend through the term and, for each atom (i.e. anything not of the form _ + _) you have to figure out whether it can be brought into the form of_int … * pi (e.g. again by writing a conversion that does this transformation – to make it easy you can omit this part so that your procedure only works if the terms are already in that form) and then group all the terms of the form of_int … * pi to the right and all the terms not of that form to the left using associativity and commutativity.
I would suggest this:
Define a function SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM x n = x + of_int n * pi
Write a conversion sin_atom_conv that rewrites of_int n * pi to SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM 0 n and everything else into SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM x 0
Write a conversion that descends through +, applies sin_atom_conv to every atom, and then applies some kind of combination rule like SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM x1 n1 + SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM x2 n2 = SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM (x1 + x2) (n1 + n2)
In the end, you have rewritten your entire form to the form sin (SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM x n), and then you can apply some suitable rule to that.
It's not quite clear to me how to best handle the parity of n. You could rewrite sin (SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM x n) = (-1) ^ nat ¦n¦ * sin x but I'm not sure if that's what the user really wants in most cases. It might make more sense to only do that if you can deduce the parity of n statically (e.g. by using the simplifier) and then directly simplify to sin x or -sin x.
The situation becomes even more complicated if you want to include halves of π. You can of course extend SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM by a second term for halves of π (and one for doubles of π as well to make it more uniform). Or you could ad all of them together so that you just have a single integer n that describes your multiples of π/2, and k multiples of π simply contribute 2k to that term. And then you have to figure out what n mod 4 is – possibly again with the simplifier or with some clever static method.
So my code is
function mystery(n, k):
if k ≥ n
return foo(n)
sum = 0
for i = k to n
sum = sum + mystery(n, k+1)
return sum
I have created a tree and the answer I am getting is $n^2*(n-1)!$. where foo is O(n. )Is it correct?
You are correct. If you were to turn the recursion into iteration, you would have loops that run triangle(n-k) times -- where triangle is the triangle function, the sum of integers 1 through N. The formula for that is
triangle(N) = N * (N-1) / 2
Multiply this by O(n), drop the 1/2 constant, and that yields your answer.
[ N.B. Since k is a constant for complexity purposes, you also drop that]
I am trying to understand Big-O notation through a book I have and it is covering Big-O by using functions although I am a bit confused. The book says that O(g(n)) where g(n) is the upper bound of f(n). So I understand that means that g(n) gives the max rate of growth for f(n) at larger values of n.
and that there exists an n_0 where the rate of growth of cg(n) (where c is some constant) and f(n) have the same rate of growth.
But what I am confused is on these examples on finding Big O in mathmatical functions.
This book says findthe upper bound for f(n) = n^4 +100n^2 + 50
they then state that n^4 +100n^2 + 50 <= 2n^4 (unsure why the 2n^4)
then they some how find n_0 =11 and c = 2, I understand why the big O is O(n^4) but I am just confused about the rest.
This is all discouraging as I don't understand but I feel like this is an important topic that I must understand.
If any one is curious the book is Data Structures and Algorithms Made Easy by Narasimha Karumanchi
Not sure if this post belongs here or in the math board.
Preparations
First, lets state, loosely, the definition of f being in O(g(n)) (note: O(g(n)) is a set of functions, so to be picky, we say that f is in O(...), rather than f(n) being in O(...)).
If a function f(n) is in O(g(n)), then c · g(n) is an upper bound on
f(n), for some constant c such that f(n) is always ≤ c · g(n),
for large enough n (i.e. , n ≥ n0 for some constant n0).
Hence, to show that f(n) is in O(g(n)), we need to find a set of constants (c, n0) that fulfils
f(n) < c · g(n), for all n ≥ n0, (+)
but this set is not unique. I.e., the problem of finding the constants (c, n0) such that (+) holds is degenerate. In fact, if any such pair of constants exists, there will exist an infinite amount of different such pairs.
Showing that f ∈ O(n^4)
Now, lets proceed and look at the example that confused you
Find an upper asymptotic bound for the function
f(n) = n^4 + 100n^2 + 50 (*)
One straight-forward approach is to express the lower-order terms in (*) in terms of the higher order terms, specifically, w.r.t. bounds (... < ...).
Hence, we see if we can find a lower bound on n such that the following holds
100n^2 + 50 ≤ n^4, for all n ≥ ???, (i)
We can easily find when equality holds in (i) by solving the equation
m = n^2, m > 0
m^2 - 100m - 50 = 0
(m - 50)^2 - 50^2 - 50 = 0
(m - 50)^2 = 2550
m = 50 ± sqrt(2550) = { m > 0, single root } ≈ 100.5
=> n ≈ { n > 0 } ≈ 10.025
Hence, (i) holds for n ≳ 10.025, bu we'd much rather present this bound on n with a neat integer value, hence rounding up to 11:
100n^2 + 50 ≤ n^4, for all n ≥ 11, (ii)
From (ii) it's apparent that the following holds
f(n) = n^4 + 100n^2 + 50 ≤ n^4 + n^4 = 2 · n^4, for all n ≥ 11, (iii)
And this relation is exactly (+) with c = 2, n0 = 11 and g(n) = n^4, and hence we've shown that f ∈ O(n^4). Note again, however, that the choice of constants c and n0 is one of convenience, that is not unique. Since we've shown that (+) holds for on set of constants (c,n0), we can show that it holds for an infinite amount of different such choices of constants (e.g., it naturally holds for c=10 and n0=20, ..., and so on).
Consider m by n matrices M, all of whose entries are 0 or 1. For a given M, the question is whether there exists a non zero vector v, all of whose entries are -1, 0 or 1 for which Mv = 0. For example,
[0 1 1 1]
M_1 = [1 0 1 1]
[1 1 0 1]
In this example, there is no such vector v.
[1 0 0 0]
M_2 = [0 1 0 0]
[0 0 1 0]
In this example, the vector (0,0,0,1) gives M_2v = 0.
Given an m and n, I would like to find if there exists such an M so that there is no non-zero v such that Mv = 0.
If m = 3 and n = 4 then the answer is yes as we can see above.
I am currently solving this problem by trying all different M and v which is very expensive.
However, is it possible to express the problem as an integer
programming problem or constraint programming problem so I can use an
existing software package, such as SCIP instead which might be more
efficient.
This question is probably more mathematical than progamming. I haven't found the final answer yet, but at least some ideas are here:
We can re-state the problem in the following way.
Problem A: Fix positive integers m and n. Let S be the set of n-dimensional vectors whose entries are 0 or 1. Does there exist any m by n matrix M whose entries are 0 or 1, such that, for any two different vectors v_1 and v_2 in S, the vectors Mv_1 and Mv_2 are different. (Or, you may say that, the matrix M, considered as an application from n-dimensional vectors to m-dimensional vectors, is injective on the set S.)
In brief: given the pair (m, n), does there exist such an injective M?
Problem A is equivalent to the original problem. Indeed, if Mv_1 = Mv_2 for two different v_1 and v_2 in S, then we have M(v_1 - v_2) = 0, and the vector v_1 - v_2 will have only 0, 1, - 1 as entries. The inverse is obviously also true.
Another reinterpretation is:
Problem B: Let m, n be a positive integer and S be the set of n-dimensional vectors whose entries are 0 and 1. Can we find m vectors r_1, ..., r_m in S, such that, for any pair of different vectors v_1 and v_2 in S, there exists an r_i, which satisfies <v_1, r_i> != <v_2, r_i>? Here <x, y> is the usual inner product.
In brief: can we choose m vectors in S to distinguish everyone in S by taking inner product with the chosen ones?
Problem B is equivalent to Problem A, because you can identify the matrix M with m vectors in S.
In the following, I will use both descriptions of the problem freely.
Let's call the pair (m, n) a "good pair" if the answer to Problem A (or B) is yes.
With the description of Problem B, it is clear that, for a given n, there is a minimal m such that (m, n) is a good pair. Let us write m(n) for this minimal m associated to n.
Similarly, for a given m, there is a maximal n such that (m, n) is good. This is because, if (m, n) is good, i.e. there is an injective M as stated in Problem A, then for any n' <= n, erasing any n - n' columns of M will give an injective M'. Let us write n(m) for this maximal n associated to m.
So the task becomes to calculate the functions m(n) and/or n(m).
We first prove several lemmas:
Lemma 1: We have m(n + k) <= m(n) + m(k).
Proof: If M is an m(n) by n injective matrix for the pair (m(n), n) and K is an m(k) by k injective matrix for the pair (m(k), k), then the (m(n) + n(k)) by (n + k) matrix
[M 0]
[0 K]
works for the pair (m(n) + 1, n + 1). To see this, let v_1 and v_2 be any pair of different (n + k)-dimensional vectors. We may cut both of them into two pieces: the first n entries, and the last k entries. If the first pieces of them are not equal, then they can be distinguished by one of the first m(n) rows of the above matrix; if the first pieces of them are equal, then the second pieces of them must be different, hence they can be distinguished by one of the last m(k) rows of the above matrix.
Remark: The sequence m(n) is thus a subadditive sequence.
A simple corollary:
Corollary 2: We have m(n + 1) <= m(n) + 1, hence m(n) <= n.
Proof: Take k = 1 in Lemma 1.
Note that, from other known values of m(n) you can get better upper bounds. For example, since we know that m(4) <= 3, we have m(4n) <= 3n. Anyway, these always give you O(n) upper bounds.
The next lemma gives you a lower bound.
Lemma 3: m(n) >= n / log2(n + 1).
Proof: Let T be the set of m(n)-dimensional vectors whose entries lie in {0, 1, ..., n}. Any m(n) by n matrix M gives a map from S to T, sending v to Mv.
Since there exists an M such that the above map is injective, then necessarily the size of the set T is at least the size of the set S. The size of T is (n + 1)^m, and the size of S is 2^n, thus we have:
(n + 1)^m(n) >= 2^n
or equivalently, m(n) >= n / log2(n + 1).
Back to programming
I have to say that I haven't figured out a good algorithm.
You might restate the problem as a Set Cover Problem, as follows:
Let U be the set of n dimensional vectors with entries 1, 0 or - 1, and let S be as above. Every vector w in S gives a subset C_w of U: C_w = {v in U: <w, v> != 0}. The question is then: can we find m vectors w such that the union of the subsets C_w is equal to U.
The general Set Cover Problem is NP complete, but in the above Wiki link there is an integer linear program formulation.
Anyway, this cannot take you much further than n = 10, I guess.
I'll keep editting this answer if I have further results.
i think using Boolean matrix multiplication will allow you to solve the Mv=0 problem with only 1's & 0's more efficiently. Using this method you should be able to solve without worrying about rank deficiencies due to the RHS equaling zero. Here is a link to documentation on some algorithms for using BMM:
http://theory.stanford.edu/~virgi/cs367/lecture2.pdf
If I understand the question, you are asking for a given m,n if there exists a Matrix M, (Linear Transformation), with a trivial kernal, that is Ker(M)={0}.
Recall that this is the same as the Nullspace of M being zero 0, Null(M)=0.
For the system Mv=0 the nullspace is {0} if the rank of the matrix M is equal to the dimension of v. So your question comes down to asking about the existence of a mxn matrix with rank dim(v)=m.
The problem in this form has been discussed here
Generate "random" matrix of certain rank over a fixed set of elements
You can also frame this question in terms of determinants because if M has determinant=0 then the nullspace is nontrivial. So you can think about this question in terms of constucting a matrix with entries in {-1,0,1} with a desired determinant.
I hope this helps.
I read in a data structures book complexity hierarchy diagram that n is greater than 2log n. But cannot understand how and why. On using simple examples in power of 2 as n, I get values equal to n.
It is not mentioned in book , but I am assuming it to base 2 ( as context is DS complexity)
a) Is O(n) > O(pow(2,logn))?
b) Is O(pow(2,log n)) better than O(n)?
Notice that 2logb n = 2log2 n / log2 b = n(1 / log2 b). If log2 b ≥ 1 (that is, b ≥ 2), then this entire expression is strictly less than n and is therefore O(n). If log2 b < 1 (that is, b < 2), then this expression is of the form n1 + ε and therefore not O(n). Therefore, it boils down to what the log base is. If b ≥ 2, then the expression is O(n). If b < 2, then the expression is ω(n).
Hope this helps!
There is a constant factor in there somewhere, but it's not in the right place to make O(n) equal to O(pow(2,log n)), assuming log means the natural logarithm.
n = 2 ** log2(n) // by definition of log2, the base-2 logarithm
= 2 ** (log(n)/log(2)) // standard conversion of logs from one base to another
n ** log(2) = 2 ** log(n) // raise both sides of that to the log(2) power
Since log(2) < 1, O(n ** log(2)) < O(n ** 1). Sure, there is only a constant ratio between the exponents, but the fact remains that they are different exponents. O(n ** 3) is greater than O(n ** 2) for the same reason: even though 3 is bigger than 2 by only a constant factor, it is bigger and the Orders are different.
We therefore have
O(n) = O(n ** 1) > O(n ** log(2)) = O(2 ** log(n))
Just like in the book.