I have a power series with all terms non-negative which I want to evaluate to some arbitrarily set precision p (the length in binary digits of a MPFR floating-point mantissa). The result should be faithfully rounded. The issue is that I don't know when should I stop adding terms to the result variable, that is, how do I know when do I already have p + 32 accurate summed bits of the series? 32 is just an arbitrarily chosen small natural number meant to facilitate more accurate rounding to p binary digits.
This is my original series
0 <= h <= 1
series_orig(h) := sum(n = 0, +inf, a(n) * h^n)
But I actually need to calculate an arbitrary derivative of the above series (m is the order of the derivative):
series(h, m) := sum(n = m, +inf, a(n) * (n - m + 1) * ... * n * h^(n - m))
The rational number sequence a is defined like so:
a(n) := binomial(1/2, n)^2
= (((2*n)!/(n!)) / (n! * 4^n * (2*n - 1)))^2
So how do I know when to stop summing up terms of series?
Is the following maybe a good strategy?
compute in p * 4 (which is assumed to be greater than p + 32).
at each point be able to recall the current partial sum and the previous one.
stop looping when the previous and current partial sums are equal if rounded to precision p + 32.
round to precision p and return.
Clarification
I'm doing this with MPFI, an interval arithmetic addon to MPFR. Thus the [mpfi] tag.
Attempts to get relevant formulas and equations
Guided by Eric in the comments, I have managed to derive a formula for the required working precision and an equation for the required number of terms of the series in the sum.
A problem, however, is that a nice formula for the required number of terms is not possible.
Someone more mathematically capable might instead be able to achieve a formula for a useful upper bound, but that seems quite difficult to do for all possible requested result precisions and for all possible values of m (the order of the derivative). Note that the formulas need to be easily computable so they're ready before I start computing the series.
Another problem is that it seems necessary to assume the worst case for h (h = 1) for there to be any chance of a nice formula, but this is wasteful if h is far from the worst case, that is if h is close to zero.
An algorithm runs in polynomial time if it's runtime is O(nk) for some k. However, I've also seen polynomial time defined as time nO(1).
I have some questions about this:
Why is nO(1) polynomial time? What happened to k?
If nO(1) is polynomial time, then 3n2 should be nO(1). But where did the 3 go? How does that work?
Thanks!
When you have an expression like "the runtime is O(n)" or "the runtime is O(n2)," the O(n) and O(n2) terms aren't actual functions. Instead, they're placeholders for some other function with some property. For example, take this statement:
The runtime of the algorithm is O(n)
This statement really means
There is some function f(n) where the runtime of the algorithm is f(n) and f(n) = O(n)
For example, if a function's actual runtime is 137n + 42, the statement "the runtime of the algorithm is O(n)" is true because there is some function (namely, f(n) = 137n + 42) where the runtime of the algorithm is f(n) and f(n) = O(n).
Given this, let's think about what the statement "the runtime of the algorithm is nO(1)" means. This statement is equivalent to
There is some function f(n) where the runtime of the algorithm is nf(n) and f(n) = O(1)
Now that we've gotten the terminology clearer, what exactly does this mean? Intuitively, a function is O(1) if it's eventually bounded from above by some constant. Therefore, any function f(n) that's O(1) must satisfy f(n) ≤ k once n gets sufficiently large. Therefore, at least intuitively, nO(1) means "n raised to some power that's at most k," which sounds like the definition of a polynomial function.
Of course, there's that pesky issue of constant factors. The function 137n3 is definitely O(n3), but it has a huge constant term in front. On the other hand, if we have a function of the form nO(1), there isn't a constant term in front of the n3. How do we handle this?
This is where we can get cute with the math. In the case of 137n3, note that when n > 1, we have
137n3 = nlogn137 n3 = n3 + logn 137
Notice that this is n raised to the power of logn 137. Although it might look like the function logn 137 grows as n grows larger, it actually has the opposite behavior: it decreases as n grows. The reason for this is that we can use the change of base formula to rewrite logn 137 as
logn 137 = log 137 / log n
Which clearly decreases in the long term when log n decreases. Therefore, the expression 3 + logn137 ends up being bounded from above by some constant, so it's O(1).
Using this technique, it's possible to convert O(nk) to nO(1) by choosing the exponent of n to be k plus the log base n of the constant factor in front of the nk term that comes up in the big-O notation. Similarly, we can convert back from nO(1) to O(nk) by choosing k to be any constant that upper-bounds the function hidden by the O(1) term in the exponent of n.
Hope this helps!
I have polynomials of nontrivial degree (4+) and need to robustly and efficiently determine whether or not they have a root in the interval [0,T]. The precise location or number of roots don't concern me, I just need to know if there is at least one.
Right now I'm using interval arithmetic as a quick check to see if I can prove that no roots can exist. If I can't, I'm using Jenkins-Traub to solve for all of the polynomial roots. This is obviously inefficient since it's checking for all real roots and finding their exact positions, information I don't end up needing.
Is there a standard algorithm I should be using? If not, are there any other efficient checks I could do before doing a full Jenkins-Traub solve for all roots?
For example, one optimization I could do is to check if my polynomial f(t) has the same sign at 0 and T. If not, there is obviously a root in the interval. If so, I can solve for the roots of f'(t) and evaluate f at all roots of f' in the interval [0,T]. f(t) has no root in that interval if and only if all of these evaluations have the same sign as f(0) and f(T). This reduces the degree of the polynomial I have to root-find by one. Not a huge optimization, but perhaps better than nothing.
Sturm's theorem lets you calculate the number of real roots in the range (a, b). Given the number of roots, you know if there is at least one. From the bottom half of page 4 of this paper:
Let f(x) be a real polynomial. Denote it by f0(x) and its derivative f′(x) by f1(x). Proceed as in Euclid's algorithm to find
f0(x) = q1(x) · f1(x) − f2(x),
f1(x) = q2(x) · f2(x) − f3(x),
.
.
.
fk−2(x) = qk−1(x) · fk−1(x) − fk,
where fk is a constant, and for 1 ≤ i ≤ k, fi(x) is of degree lower than that of fi−1(x). The signs of the remainders are negated from those in the Euclid algorithm.
Note that the last non-vanishing remainder fk (or fk−1 when fk = 0) is a greatest common
divisor of f(x) and f′(x). The sequence f0, f1,. . ., fk (or fk−1 when fk = 0) is called a Sturm sequence for the polynomial f.
Theorem 1 (Sturm's Theorem) The number of distinct real zeros of a polynomial f(x) with
real coefficients in (a, b) is equal to the excess of the number of changes of sign in the sequence f0(a), ..., fk−1(a), fk over the number of changes of sign in the sequence f0(b), ..., fk−1(b), fk.
You could certainly do binary search on your interval arithmetic. Start with [0,T] and substitute it into your polynomial. If the result interval does not contain 0, you're done. If it does, divide the interval in 2 and recurse on each half. This scheme will find the approximate location of each root pretty quickly.
If you eventually get 4 separate intervals with a root, you know you are done. Otherwise, I think you need to get to intervals [x,y] where f'([x,y]) does not contain zero, meaning that the function is monotonically increasing or decreasing and hence contains at most one zero. Double roots might present a problem, I'd have to think more about that.
Edit: if you suspect a multiple root, find roots of f' using the same procedure.
Use Descartes rule of signs to glean some information. Just count the number of sign changes in the coefficients. This gives you an upper bound on the number of positive real roots. Consider the polynomial P.
P = 131.1 - 73.1*x + 52.425*x^2 - 62.875*x^3 - 69.225*x^4 + 11.225*x^5 + 9.45*x^6 + x^7
In fact, I've constructed P to have a simple list of roots. They are...
{-6, -4.75, -2, 1, 2.3, -i, +i}
Can we determine if there is a root in the interval [0,3]? Note that there is no sign change in the value of P at the endpoints.
P(0) = 131.1
P(3) = 4882.5
How many sign changes are there in the coefficients of P? There are 4 sign changes, so there may be as many as 4 positive roots.
But, now substitute x+3 for x into P. Thus
Q(x) = P(x+3) = ...
4882.5 + 14494.75*x + 15363.9*x^2 + 8054.675*x^3 + 2319.9*x^4 + 370.325*x^5 + 30.45*x^6 + x^7
See that Q(x) has NO sign changes in the coefficients. All of the coefficients are positive values. Therefore there can be no roots larger than 3.
So there MAY be either 2 or 4 roots in the interval [0,3].
At least this tells you whether to bother looking at all. Of course, if the function has opposite signs on each end of the interval, we know there are an odd number of roots in that interval.
It's not that efficient, but is quite reliable. You can construct the polynomial's Companion Matrix (A sparse matrix whose eigenvalues are the polynomial's roots).
There are efficient eigenvalue algorithms that can find eigenvalues in a given interval. One of them is the inverse iteration (Can find eigenvalues closest to some input value. Just give the middle point of the interval as the above value).
If the value f(0)*f(t)<=0 then you are guaranteed to have a root. Otherwise you can start splitting the domain into two parts (bisection) and check the values in the ends until you are confident there is no root in that segment.
if f(0)*f(t)>0 you either have no, two, four, .. roots. Your limit is the polynomial order. if f(0)*f(t)<0 you may have one, three, five, .. roots.
I have a homework problem for my algorithms class asking me to calculate the maximum size of a problem that can be solved in a given number of operations using an O(n log n) algorithm (ie: n log n = c). I was able to get an answer by approximating, but is there a clean way to get an exact answer?
There is no closed-form formula for this equation. Basically, you can transform the equation:
n log n = c
log(n^n) = c
n^n = exp(c)
Then, this equation has a solution of the form:
n = exp(W(c))
where W is Lambert W function (see especially "Example 2"). It was proved that W cannot be expressed using elementary operations.
However, f(n)=n*log(n) is a monotonic function. You can simply use bisection (here in python):
import math
def nlogn(c):
lower = 0.0
upper = 10e10
while True:
middle = (lower+upper)/2
if lower == middle or middle == upper:
return middle
if middle*math.log(middle, 2) > c:
upper = middle
else:
lower = middle
the O notation only gives you the biggest term in the equation. Ie the performance of your O(n log n ) algorithm could actually be better represented by c = (n log n) + n + 53.
This means that without knowing the exact nature of the performance of your algorithm you wouldn't be able to calculate the exact number of operations required to process an given amount of data.
But it is possible to calculate that the maximum number of operations required to process a data set of size n is more than a certain number, or conversely that the biggest problem set that can be solved, using that algorithm and that number of operations, is smaller than a certain number.
The O notation is useful for comparing 2 algorithms, ie an O(n^2) algorithm is faster than a O(n^3) algorithm etc.
see Wikipedia for more info.
some help with logs
This question on getting random values from a finite set got me thinking...
It's fairly common for people to want to retrieve X unique values from a set of Y values. For example, I may want to deal a hand from a deck of cards. I want 5 cards, and I want them to all be unique.
Now, I can do this naively, by picking a random card 5 times, and try again each time I get a duplicate, until I get 5 cards. This isn't so great, however, for large numbers of values from large sets. If I wanted 999,999 values from a set of 1,000,000, for instance, this method gets very bad.
The question is: how bad? I'm looking for someone to explain an O() value. Getting the xth number will take y attempts...but how many? I know how to figure this out for any given value, but is there a straightforward way to generalize this for the whole series and get an O() value?
(The question is not: "how can I improve this?" because it's relatively easy to fix, and I'm sure it's been covered many times elsewhere.)
Variables
n = the total amount of items in the set
m = the amount of unique values that are to be retrieved from the set of n items
d(i) = the expected amount of tries needed to achieve a value in step i
i = denotes one specific step. i ∈ [0, n-1]
T(m,n) = expected total amount of tries for selecting m unique items from a set of n items using the naive algorithm
Reasoning
The first step, i=0, is trivial. No matter which value we choose, we get a unique one at the first attempt. Hence:
d(0) = 1
In the second step, i=1, we at least need 1 try (the try where we pick a valid unique value). On top of this, there is a chance that we choose the wrong value. This chance is (amount of previously picked items)/(total amount of items). In this case 1/n. In the case where we picked the wrong item, there is a 1/n chance we may pick the wrong item again. Multiplying this by 1/n, since that is the combined probability that we pick wrong both times, gives (1/n)2. To understand this, it is helpful to draw a decision tree. Having picked a non-unique item twice, there is a probability that we will do it again. This results in the addition of (1/n)3 to the total expected amounts of tries in step i=1. Each time we pick the wrong number, there is a chance we might pick the wrong number again. This results in:
d(1) = 1 + 1/n + (1/n)2 + (1/n)3 + (1/n)4 + ...
Similarly, in the general i:th step, the chance to pick the wrong item in one choice is i/n, resulting in:
d(i) = 1 + i/n + (i/n)2 + (i/n)3 + (i/n)4 + ... = = sum( (i/n)k ), where k ∈ [0,∞]
This is a geometric sequence and hence it is easy to compute it's sum:
d(i) = (1 - i/n)-1
The overall complexity is then computed by summing the expected amount of tries in each step:
T(m,n) = sum ( d(i) ), where i ∈ [0,m-1] = = 1 + (1 - 1/n)-1 + (1 - 2/n)-1 + (1 - 3/n)-1 + ... + (1 - (m-1)/n)-1
Extending the fractions in the series above by n, we get:
T(m,n) = n/n + n/(n-1) + n/(n-2) + n/(n-3) + ... + n/(n-m+2) + n/(n-m+1)
We can use the fact that:
n/n ≤ n/(n-1) ≤ n/(n-2) ≤ n/(n-3) ≤ ... ≤ n/(n-m+2) ≤ n/(n-m+1)
Since the series has m terms, and each term satisfies the inequality above, we get:
T(m,n) ≤ n/(n-m+1) + n/(n-m+1) + n/(n-m+1) + n/(n-m+1) + ... + n/(n-m+1) + n/(n-m+1) = = m*n/(n-m+1)
It might be(and probably is) possible to establish a slightly stricter upper bound by using some technique to evaluate the series instead of bounding by the rough method of (amount of terms) * (biggest term)
Conclusion
This would mean that the Big-O order is O(m*n/(n-m+1)). I see no possible way to simplify this expression from the way it is.
Looking back at the result to check if it makes sense, we see that, if n is constant, and m gets closer and closer to n, the results will quickly increase, since the denominator gets very small. This is what we'd expect, if we for example consider the example given in the question about selecting "999,999 values from a set of 1,000,000". If we instead let m be constant and n grow really, really large, the complexity will converge towards O(m) in the limit n → ∞. This is also what we'd expect, since while chosing a constant number of items from a "close to" infinitely sized set the probability of choosing a previously chosen value is basically 0. I.e. We need m tries independently of n since there are no collisions.
If you already have chosen i values then the probability that you pick a new one from a set of y values is
(y-i)/y.
Hence the expected number of trials to get (i+1)-th element is
y/(y-i).
Thus the expected number of trials to choose x unique element is the sum
y/y + y/(y-1) + ... + y/(y-x+1)
This can be expressed using harmonic numbers as
y (Hy - Hy-x).
From the wikipedia page you get the approximation
Hx = ln(x) + gamma + O(1/x)
Hence the number of necessary trials to pick x unique elements from a set of y elements
is
y (ln(y) - ln(y-x)) + O(y/(y-x)).
If you need then you can get a more precise approximation by using a more precise approximation for Hx. In particular, when x is small it is possible to
improve the result a lot.
If you're willing to make the assumption that your random number generator will always find a unique value before cycling back to a previously seen value for a given draw, this algorithm is O(m^2), where m is the number of unique values you are drawing.
So, if you are drawing m values from a set of n values, the 1st value will require you to draw at most 1 to get a unique value. The 2nd requires at most 2 (you see the 1st value, then a unique value), the 3rd 3, ... the mth m. Hence in total you require 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + m = [m*(m+1)]/2 = (m^2 + m)/2 draws. This is O(m^2).
Without this assumption, I'm not sure how you can even guarantee the algorithm will complete. It's quite possible (especially with a pseudo-random number generator which may have a cycle), that you will keep seeing the same values over and over and never get to another unique value.
==EDIT==
For the average case:
On your first draw, you will make exactly 1 draw.
On your 2nd draw, you expect to make 1 (the successful draw) + 1/n (the "partial" draw which represents your chance of drawing a repeat)
On your 3rd draw, you expect to make 1 (the successful draw) + 2/n (the "partial" draw...)
...
On your mth draw, you expect to make 1 + (m-1)/n draws.
Thus, you will make 1 + (1 + 1/n) + (1 + 2/n) + ... + (1 + (m-1)/n) draws altogether in the average case.
This equals the sum from i=0 to (m-1) of [1 + i/n]. Let's denote that sum(1 + i/n, i, 0, m-1).
Then:
sum(1 + i/n, i, 0, m-1) = sum(1, i, 0, m-1) + sum(i/n, i, 0, m-1)
= m + sum(i/n, i, 0, m-1)
= m + (1/n) * sum(i, i, 0, m-1)
= m + (1/n)*[(m-1)*m]/2
= (m^2)/(2n) - (m)/(2n) + m
We drop the low order terms and the constants, and we get that this is O(m^2/n), where m is the number to be drawn and n is the size of the list.
There's a beautiful O(n) algorithm for this. It goes as follows. Say you have n items, from which you want to pick m items. I assume the function rand() yields a random real number between 0 and 1. Here's the algorithm:
items_left=n
items_left_to_pick=m
for j=1,...,n
if rand()<=(items_left_to_pick/items_left)
Pick item j
items_left_to_pick=items_left_to_pick-1
end
items_left=items_left-1
end
It can be proved that this algorithm does indeed pick each subset of m items with equal probability, though the proof is non-obvious. Unfortunately, I don't have a reference handy at the moment.
Edit The advantage of this algorithm is that it takes only O(m) memory (assuming the items are simply integers or can be generated on-the-fly) compared to doing a shuffle, which takes O(n) memory.
Your actual question is actually a lot more interesting than what I answered (and harder). I've never been any good at statistitcs (and it's been a while since I did any), but intuitively, I'd say that the run-time complexity of that algorithm would probably something like an exponential. As long as the number of elements picked is small enough compared to the size of the array the collision-rate will be so small that it will be close to linear time, but at some point the number of collisions will probably grow fast and the run-time will go down the drain.
If you want to prove this, I think you'd have to do something moderately clever with the expected number of collisions in function of the wanted number of elements. It might be possible do to by induction as well, but I think going by that route would require more cleverness than the first alternative.
EDIT: After giving it some thought, here's my attempt:
Given an array of m elements, and looking for n random and different elements. It is then easy to see that when we want to pick the ith element, the odds of picking an element we've already visited are (i-1)/m. This is then the expected number of collisions for that particular pick. For picking n elements, the expected number of collisions will be the sum of the number of expected collisions for each pick. We plug this into Wolfram Alpha (sum (i-1)/m, i=1 to n) and we get the answer (n**2 - n)/2m. The average number of picks for our naive algorithm is then n + (n**2 - n)/2m.
Unless my memory fails me completely (which entirely possible, actually), this gives an average-case run-time O(n**2).
The worst case for this algorithm is clearly when you're choosing the full set of N items. This is equivalent to asking: On average, how many times must I roll an N-sided die before each side has come up at least once?
Answer: N * HN, where HN is the Nth harmonic number,
a value famously approximated by log(N).
This means the algorithm in question is N log N.
As a fun example, if you roll an ordinary 6-sided die until you see one of each number, it will take on average 6 H6 = 14.7 rolls.
Before being able to answer this question in details, lets define the framework. Suppose you have a collection {a1, a2, ..., an} of n distinct objects, and want to pick m distinct objects from this set, such that the probability of a given object aj appearing in the result is equal for all objects.
If you have already picked k items, and radomly pick an item from the full set {a1, a2, ..., an}, the probability that the item has not been picked before is (n-k)/n. This means that the number of samples you have to take before you get a new object is (assuming independence of random sampling) geometric with parameter (n-k)/n. Thus the expected number of samples to obtain one extra item is n/(n-k), which is close to 1 if k is small compared to n.
Concluding, if you need m unique objects, randomly selected, this algorithm gives you
n/n + n/(n-1) + n/(n-2) + n/(n-3) + .... + n/(n-(m-1))
which, as Alderath showed, can be estimated by
m*n / (n-m+1).
You can see a little bit more from this formula:
* The expected number of samples to obtain a new unique element increases as the number of already chosen objects increases (which sounds logical).
* You can expect really long computation times when m is close to n, especially if n is large.
In order to obtain m unique members from the set, use a variant of David Knuth's algorithm for obtaining a random permutation. Here, I'll assume that the n objects are stored in an array.
for i = 1..m
k = randInt(i, n)
exchange(i, k)
end
here, randInt samples an integer from {i, i+1, ... n}, and exchange flips two members of the array. You only need to shuffle m times, so the computation time is O(m), whereas the memory is O(n) (although you can adapt it to only save the entries such that a[i] <> i, which would give you O(m) on both time and memory, but with higher constants).
Most people forget that looking up, if the number has already run, also takes a while.
The number of tries nessesary can, as descriped earlier, be evaluated from:
T(n,m) = n(H(n)-H(n-m)) ⪅ n(ln(n)-ln(n-m))
which goes to n*ln(n) for interesting values of m
However, for each of these 'tries' you will have to do a lookup. This might be a simple O(n) runthrough, or something like a binary tree. This will give you a total performance of n^2*ln(n) or n*ln(n)^2.
For smaller values of m (m < n/2), you can do a very good approximation for T(n,m) using the HA-inequation, yielding the formula:
2*m*n/(2*n-m+1)
As m goes to n, this gives a lower bound of O(n) tries and performance O(n^2) or O(n*ln(n)).
All the results are however far better, that I would ever have expected, which shows that the algorithm might actually be just fine in many non critical cases, where you can accept occasional longer running times (when you are unlucky).