I was wondering, if my thought process looks odd.
After digging for a bit on time complexity for general code, say:
Alg(x):
statements...
functions...
...
Can we say that T(Alg(x)) = T1(statement) + T2(functions) + T3(...) then break them apart and keep going in depth until we can go no further? This can lead to the Halting Problem which I can see if my previous statement is correct.
From (1) (assuming it holds) then any alg. such that it's non-recursive can we say T(Alg(x)) is:
Alg(x):
block 1 -> {
for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
for (j = 0; j < M; j++) {
statements
}
}
}
block 2 -> {
for j -> k // T(K)
call_1() // T(N_1)
call_2() // T(N_2)
}
T(Alg(x)) = T1(b1) + T2(b2)
where T1(b1) = T(N) * T2(f2) = T(N) * (T(M) * T3(s3)) as general where N, M are input sizes, and s3 are more breakable parts.
As for T2(b2) we have T(K) + T(N1) + T(N2)
I have the following problem to solve: given a number N and 1<=k<=N, count the number of possible sums of (1,...,k) which add to N. There may be equal factors (e.g. if N=3 and k=2, (1,1,1) is a valid sum), but permutations must not be counted (e.g., if N=3 and k=2, count (1,2) and (2,1) as a single solution). I have implemented the recursive Python code below but I'd like to find a better solution (maybe with dynamic programming? ). It seems similar to the triple step problem, but with the extra constraint of not counting permutations.
def find_num_sums_aux(n, min_k, max_k):
# base case
if n == 0:
return 1
count = 0
# due to lower bound min_k, we evaluate only ordered solutions and prevent permutations
for i in range(min_k, max_k+1):
if n-i>=0:
count += find_num_sums_aux(n-i, i, max_k)
return count
def find_num_sums(n, k):
count = find_num_sums_aux(n,1,k)
return count
This is a standard problem in dynamic programming (subset sum problem).
Lets define the function f(i,j) which gives the number of ways you can get the sum j using a subset of the numbers (1...i), then the result to your problem will be f(k,n).
for each number x of the range (1...i), x might be a part of the sum j or might not, so we need to count these two possibilities.
Note: f(i,0) = 1 for any i, which means that you can get the sum = 0 in one way and this way is by not taking any number from the range (1...i).
Here is the code written in C++:
int n = 10;
int k = 7;
int f[8][11];
//initializing the array with zeroes
for (int i = 0; i <= k; i++)
for (int j = 0; j <= n; j++)
f[i][j] = 0;
f[0][0] = 1;
for (int i = 1; i <= k; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j <= n; j++) {
if (j == 0)
f[i][j] = 1;
else {
f[i][j] = f[i - 1][j];//without adding i to the sum j
if (j - i >= 0)
f[i][j] = f[i][j] + f[i - 1][j - i];//adding i to the sum j
}
}
}
cout << f[k][n] << endl;//print f(k,n)
Update
To handle the case where we can repeat the elements like (1,1,1) will give you the sum 3, you just need to allow picking the same element multiple times by changing the following line of code:
f[i][j] = f[i][j] + f[i - 1][j - i];//adding i to the sum
To this:
f[i][j] = f[i][j] + f[i][j - i];
I need to do it with recursion, but the problem is that function depends on only ONE parameter and inside function it depends on two ( k and n ), also how to find minimum value if it returns only one value?
The function is :
I've already tried to make random k, but I don't think that is really good idea.
F1(int n) {
Random random = new Random();
int k = random.Next(1,10);
if (1 <= k && k <= n){
return Math.Min(F1(k - 1) + F1(n - k) + n);
} else {
return 0;
}
}
You need to make a loop traversing all k values in range 1..n. Something like this:
F1(int n) {
if (n == 0)
return ???? what is starting value?
minn = F1(0) + F1(n - 1) + n
for (int k = 2; k <= n; k++)
minn = Math.Min(minn, F1(k - 1) + F1(n - k) + n);
return minn;
}
I know that the fibonacci algorithm can be programmed without recursion like this:
int fibo(int n){
if(n <= 1){
return n;
}
int fibo = 1;
int fiboPrev = 1;
for(int i = 2; i < n; ++i){
int temp = fibo;
fibo += fiboPrev;
fiboPrev = temp;
}
return fibo;
}
and also that the recursive fibonacci has a complexity of O(2^k) approximately, but for what I see the non-recursive algorithm is O(n); so it seems is way more efficient, is it ok my calculus or is there any hidden complexity on the non-recursive solution?
Evaluate the complexity of the implementation on its own. In this case, the complexity related to the input n is defined by the for loop, which is directly proportional to the size of n. Therefore, the complexity is O(n) - linear.
As we all know, the simplest algorithm to generate Fibonacci sequence is as follows:
if(n<=0) return 0;
else if(n==1) return 1;
f(n) = f(n-1) + f(n-2);
But this algorithm has some repetitive calculation. For example, if you calculate f(5), it will calculate f(4) and f(3). When you calculate f(4), it will again calculate both f(3) and f(2). Could someone give me a more time-efficient recursive algorithm?
I have read about some of the methods for calculating Fibonacci with efficient time complexity following are some of them -
Method 1 - Dynamic Programming
Now here the substructure is commonly known hence I'll straightly Jump to the solution -
static int fib(int n)
{
int f[] = new int[n+2]; // 1 extra to handle case, n = 0
int i;
f[0] = 0;
f[1] = 1;
for (i = 2; i <= n; i++)
{
f[i] = f[i-1] + f[i-2];
}
return f[n];
}
A space-optimized version of above can be done as follows -
static int fib(int n)
{
int a = 0, b = 1, c;
if (n == 0)
return a;
for (int i = 2; i <= n; i++)
{
c = a + b;
a = b;
b = c;
}
return b;
}
Method 2- ( Using power of the matrix {{1,1},{1,0}} )
This an O(n) which relies on the fact that if we n times multiply the matrix M = {{1,1},{1,0}} to itself (in other words calculate power(M, n )), then we get the (n+1)th Fibonacci number as the element at row and column (0, 0) in the resultant matrix. This solution would have O(n) time.
The matrix representation gives the following closed expression for the Fibonacci numbers:
fibonaccimatrix
static int fib(int n)
{
int F[][] = new int[][]{{1,1},{1,0}};
if (n == 0)
return 0;
power(F, n-1);
return F[0][0];
}
/*multiplies 2 matrices F and M of size 2*2, and
puts the multiplication result back to F[][] */
static void multiply(int F[][], int M[][])
{
int x = F[0][0]*M[0][0] + F[0][1]*M[1][0];
int y = F[0][0]*M[0][1] + F[0][1]*M[1][1];
int z = F[1][0]*M[0][0] + F[1][1]*M[1][0];
int w = F[1][0]*M[0][1] + F[1][1]*M[1][1];
F[0][0] = x;
F[0][1] = y;
F[1][0] = z;
F[1][1] = w;
}
/*function that calculates F[][] raise to the power n and puts the
result in F[][]*/
static void power(int F[][], int n)
{
int i;
int M[][] = new int[][]{{1,1},{1,0}};
// n - 1 times multiply the matrix to {{1,0},{0,1}}
for (i = 2; i <= n; i++)
multiply(F, M);
}
This can be optimized to work in O(Logn) time complexity. We can do recursive multiplication to get power(M, n) in the previous method.
static int fib(int n)
{
int F[][] = new int[][]{{1,1},{1,0}};
if (n == 0)
return 0;
power(F, n-1);
return F[0][0];
}
static void multiply(int F[][], int M[][])
{
int x = F[0][0]*M[0][0] + F[0][1]*M[1][0];
int y = F[0][0]*M[0][1] + F[0][1]*M[1][1];
int z = F[1][0]*M[0][0] + F[1][1]*M[1][0];
int w = F[1][0]*M[0][1] + F[1][1]*M[1][1];
F[0][0] = x;
F[0][1] = y;
F[1][0] = z;
F[1][1] = w;
}
static void power(int F[][], int n)
{
if( n == 0 || n == 1)
return;
int M[][] = new int[][]{{1,1},{1,0}};
power(F, n/2);
multiply(F, F);
if (n%2 != 0)
multiply(F, M);
}
Method 3 (O(log n) Time)
Below is one more interesting recurrence formula that can be used to find nth Fibonacci Number in O(log n) time.
If n is even then k = n/2:
F(n) = [2*F(k-1) + F(k)]*F(k)
If n is odd then k = (n + 1)/2
F(n) = F(k)*F(k) + F(k-1)*F(k-1)
How does this formula work?
The formula can be derived from the above matrix equation.
fibonaccimatrix
Taking determinant on both sides, we get
(-1)n = Fn+1Fn-1 – Fn2
Moreover, since AnAm = An+m for any square matrix A, the following identities can be derived (they are obtained from two different coefficients of the matrix product)
FmFn + Fm-1Fn-1 = Fm+n-1
By putting n = n+1,
FmFn+1 + Fm-1Fn = Fm+n
Putting m = n
F2n-1 = Fn2 + Fn-12
F2n = (Fn-1 + Fn+1)Fn = (2Fn-1 + Fn)Fn (Source: Wiki)
To get the formula to be proved, we simply need to do the following
If n is even, we can put k = n/2
If n is odd, we can put k = (n+1)/2
public static int fib(int n)
{
if (n == 0)
return 0;
if (n == 1 || n == 2)
return (f[n] = 1);
// If fib(n) is already computed
if (f[n] != 0)
return f[n];
int k = (n & 1) == 1? (n + 1) / 2
: n / 2;
// Applyting above formula [See value
// n&1 is 1 if n is odd, else 0.
f[n] = (n & 1) == 1? (fib(k) * fib(k) +
fib(k - 1) * fib(k - 1))
: (2 * fib(k - 1) + fib(k))
* fib(k);
return f[n];
}
Method 4 - Using a formula
In this method, we directly implement the formula for the nth term in the Fibonacci series. Time O(1) Space O(1)
Fn = {[(√5 + 1)/2] ^ n} / √5
static int fib(int n) {
double phi = (1 + Math.sqrt(5)) / 2;
return (int) Math.round(Math.pow(phi, n)
/ Math.sqrt(5));
}
Reference: http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibFormula.html
Look here for implementation in Erlang which uses formula
. It shows nice linear resulting behavior because in O(M(n) log n) part M(n) is exponential for big numbers. It calculates fib of one million in 2s where result has 208988 digits. The trick is that you can compute exponentiation in O(log n) multiplications using (tail) recursive formula (tail means with O(1) space when used proper compiler or rewrite to cycle):
% compute X^N
power(X, N) when is_integer(N), N >= 0 ->
power(N, X, 1).
power(0, _, Acc) ->
Acc;
power(N, X, Acc) ->
if N rem 2 =:= 1 ->
power(N - 1, X, Acc * X);
true ->
power(N div 2, X * X, Acc)
end.
where X and Acc you substitute with matrices. X will be initiated with and Acc with identity I equals to .
One simple way is to calculate it iteratively instead of recursively. This will calculate F(n) in linear time.
def fib(n):
a,b = 0,1
for i in range(n):
a,b = a+b,a
return a
Hint: One way you achieve faster results is by using Binet's formula:
Here is a way of doing it in Python:
from decimal import *
def fib(n):
return int((Decimal(1.6180339)**Decimal(n)-Decimal(-0.6180339)**Decimal(n))/Decimal(2.236067977))
you can save your results and use them :
public static long[] fibs;
public long fib(int n) {
fibs = new long[n];
return internalFib(n);
}
public long internalFib(int n) {
if (n<=2) return 1;
fibs[n-1] = fibs[n-1]==0 ? internalFib(n-1) : fibs[n-1];
fibs[n-2] = fibs[n-2]==0 ? internalFib(n-2) : fibs[n-2];
return fibs[n-1]+fibs[n-2];
}
F(n) = (φ^n)/√5 and round to nearest integer, where φ is the golden ratio....
φ^n can be calculated in O(lg(n)) time hence F(n) can be calculated in O(lg(n)) time.
// D Programming Language
void vFibonacci ( const ulong X, const ulong Y, const int Limit ) {
// Equivalent : if ( Limit != 10 ). Former ( Limit ^ 0xA ) is More Efficient However.
if ( Limit ^ 0xA ) {
write ( Y, " " ) ;
vFibonacci ( Y, Y + X, Limit + 1 ) ;
} ;
} ;
// Call As
// By Default the Limit is 10 Numbers
vFibonacci ( 0, 1, 0 ) ;
EDIT: I actually think Hynek Vychodil's answer is superior to mine, but I'm leaving this here just in case someone is looking for an alternate method.
I think the other methods are all valid, but not optimal. Using Binet's formula should give you the right answer in principle, but rounding to the closest integer will give some problems for large values of n. The other solutions will unnecessarily recalculate the values upto n every time you call the function, and so the function is not optimized for repeated calling.
In my opinion the best thing to do is to define a global array and then to add new values to the array IF needed. In Python:
import numpy
fibo=numpy.array([1,1])
last_index=fibo.size
def fib(n):
global fibo,last_index
if (n>0):
if(n>last_index):
for i in range(last_index+1,n+1):
fibo=numpy.concatenate((fibo,numpy.array([fibo[i-2]+fibo[i-3]])))
last_index=fibo.size
return fibo[n-1]
else:
print "fib called for index less than 1"
quit()
Naturally, if you need to call fib for n>80 (approximately) then you will need to implement arbitrary precision integers, which is easy to do in python.
This will execute faster, O(n)
def fibo(n):
a, b = 0, 1
for i in range(n):
if i == 0:
print(i)
elif i == 1:
print(i)
else:
temp = a
a = b
b += temp
print(b)
n = int(input())
fibo(n)