I don't understand how the time complexity for this algorithm is calculated











up vote
8
down vote

favorite
1












int j=0;

for (int i=0; i<N; i++) 

{

    while ( (j<N-1) && (A[i]-A[j] > D) )

        j++;

    if (A[i]-A[j] == D) 

        return 1; 

}


This code is said to have the time complexity of O(n), but I don't really get it. The inner loop is executed N times and the outer should be also N times? Is it maybe because of the j = 0; outside the loop that is making it only run N times?



But even if it would only run N times in the inner loop, the if statment check should be done also N times, which should bring the total time complexity to O(n^2)?






c algorithm loops time-complexity big-o







share|improve this question









New contributor




lomo133 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 5




    Look at it this way: j++ won't be executed more than N-1 times. It's not set to 0 at each outer loop iteration start.
    – algrid
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    The inner loop is not repeatedly executed N times. That will only happen once. Once (j<N-1) is false that loop will never be entered again.
    – WhozCraig
    3 hours ago










  • Possible duplicate of How to find time complexity of an algorithm
    – cirrusio
    3 hours ago















up vote
8
down vote

favorite
1












int j=0;

for (int i=0; i<N; i++) 

{

    while ( (j<N-1) && (A[i]-A[j] > D) )

        j++;

    if (A[i]-A[j] == D) 

        return 1; 

}


This code is said to have the time complexity of O(n), but I don't really get it. The inner loop is executed N times and the outer should be also N times? Is it maybe because of the j = 0; outside the loop that is making it only run N times?



But even if it would only run N times in the inner loop, the if statment check should be done also N times, which should bring the total time complexity to O(n^2)?






c algorithm loops time-complexity big-o







share|improve this question









New contributor




lomo133 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 5




    Look at it this way: j++ won't be executed more than N-1 times. It's not set to 0 at each outer loop iteration start.
    – algrid
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    The inner loop is not repeatedly executed N times. That will only happen once. Once (j<N-1) is false that loop will never be entered again.
    – WhozCraig
    3 hours ago










  • Possible duplicate of How to find time complexity of an algorithm
    – cirrusio
    3 hours ago













up vote
8
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
8
down vote

favorite
1






1





int j=0;

for (int i=0; i<N; i++) 

{

    while ( (j<N-1) && (A[i]-A[j] > D) )

        j++;

    if (A[i]-A[j] == D) 

        return 1; 

}


This code is said to have the time complexity of O(n), but I don't really get it. The inner loop is executed N times and the outer should be also N times? Is it maybe because of the j = 0; outside the loop that is making it only run N times?



But even if it would only run N times in the inner loop, the if statment check should be done also N times, which should bring the total time complexity to O(n^2)?






c algorithm loops time-complexity big-o







share|improve this question









New contributor




lomo133 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct. 











int j=0;

for (int i=0; i<N; i++) 

{

    while ( (j<N-1) && (A[i]-A[j] > D) )

        j++;

    if (A[i]-A[j] == D) 

        return 1; 

}


This code is said to have the time complexity of O(n), but I don't really get it. The inner loop is executed N times and the outer should be also N times? Is it maybe because of the j = 0; outside the loop that is making it only run N times?



But even if it would only run N times in the inner loop, the if statment check should be done also N times, which should bring the total time complexity to O(n^2)?






c algorithm loops time-complexity big-o




c algorithm loops time-complexity big-o






share|improve this question









New contributor




lomo133 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




lomo133 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago









Some programmer dude

293k24243403




293k24243403






New contributor




lomo133 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 4 hours ago









lomo133

413




413




New contributor




lomo133 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





lomo133 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






lomo133 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 5




    Look at it this way: j++ won't be executed more than N-1 times. It's not set to 0 at each outer loop iteration start.
    – algrid
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    The inner loop is not repeatedly executed N times. That will only happen once. Once (j<N-1) is false that loop will never be entered again.
    – WhozCraig
    3 hours ago










  • Possible duplicate of How to find time complexity of an algorithm
    – cirrusio
    3 hours ago














  • 5




    Look at it this way: j++ won't be executed more than N-1 times. It's not set to 0 at each outer loop iteration start.
    – algrid
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    The inner loop is not repeatedly executed N times. That will only happen once. Once (j<N-1) is false that loop will never be entered again.
    – WhozCraig
    3 hours ago










  • Possible duplicate of How to find time complexity of an algorithm
    – cirrusio
    3 hours ago








5




5




Look at it this way: j++ won't be executed more than N-1 times. It's not set to 0 at each outer loop iteration start.
– algrid
3 hours ago




Look at it this way: j++ won't be executed more than N-1 times. It's not set to 0 at each outer loop iteration start.
– algrid
3 hours ago




1




1




The inner loop is not repeatedly executed N times. That will only happen once. Once (j<N-1) is false that loop will never be entered again.
– WhozCraig
3 hours ago




The inner loop is not repeatedly executed N times. That will only happen once. Once (j<N-1) is false that loop will never be entered again.
– WhozCraig
3 hours ago












Possible duplicate of How to find time complexity of an algorithm
– cirrusio
3 hours ago




Possible duplicate of How to find time complexity of an algorithm
– cirrusio
3 hours ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
10
down vote













The reason why this is O(n) is because j is not set back to 0 in the body of the for loop.



Indeed if we take a look at the body of the for loop, we see:



while ( (j<N-1) && (A[i]-A[j] > D) )

    j++;


That thus means that j++ is done at most n-1 times, since if j succeeds N-1 times, then the first constraint fails.



If we take a look at the entire for loop, we see:



int j=0;

for (int i=0; i<N; i++) {

    while ( (j<N-1) && (A[i]-A[j] > D) )

        j++;

    if (A[i]-A[j] == D) 

        return 1;

}


It is clear that the body of the for loop is repeated n times, since we set i to i=0, and stop when i >= N, and each iteration we increment i.



Now depending on the values in A we will or will not increment j (multiple times) in the body of the for loop. But regardless how many times it is done in a single iteration, at the end of the for loop, j++ is done at most n times, for the reason we mentioned above.



The condition in the while loop is executed O(n) (well at most 2×n-1 times to be precise) times as well: it is executed once each time we enter the body of the for loop, and each time after we execute a j++ command, but since both are O(n), this is done at most O(n+n) thus O(n) times.



The if condition in the for loop executed n times: once per iteration of the for loop, so again O(n).



So this indeed means that all "basic instructions" (j++, i = 0, j = 0, j < N-1, etc.) are all done either a constant number of times O(1), or a linear number of times O(n), hence the algorithm is O(n).






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    No, but you can still say "at most n times." Suffice it to say that I've been saying "the loop executes n times" my whole career, and I don't see any compelling reason to complicate that simple phrase.
    – Robert Harvey♦
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    I consider your last example correct usage.
    – Robert Harvey♦
    2 hours ago






  • 2




    @robertharvey: O(n) describes the asymptotic behaviour of a function. It is orthogonal to the purpose of that function, which is outside the realm of mathematics. Now, if I have a loop in my program, I can certainly say that the loop condition will be true g(X) times, where g(X) is a function mapping algorithm input X to integers. If I can also demonstrate that g(X) is in O(f(|X|)) for some function f which maps integers to integers, then I am completely justified in saying the loop executes O(f(N)) times where N is the size of the problem. Why shouldn't I?
    – rici
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    Although I like the discussion, I modified it to more "rigorous" notation. Something that is also noteworthy is that the error of approximative sequences is typically expressed in big oh as well, since here one typically has not enough information at all to specify the exact error (or at least not without exhaustive analysis, that might not be the scope of the paper), as is mentioned in the wiki article. Somehow I forgot about that (been away from academia for too long I guess) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation#Infinitesimal_asymptotics
    – Willem Van Onsem
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    @Robert: perhaps you disagree but I don't like saying that something happens at most n times when it can happen 2n times. OP asked a question using Big-O notation so responding with Big-O notation is not tossing a completely unfamiliar concept at them. They even identified the issue of counting executions of the test, but got the asymptote wrong. Anyway, we're obviously not going to get any further here right now and I've got a non-CS event to go to. So take care...
    – rici
    2 hours ago











Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






lomo133 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53770381%2fi-dont-understand-how-the-time-complexity-for-this-algorithm-is-calculated%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
10
down vote













The reason why this is O(n) is because j is not set back to 0 in the body of the for loop.



Indeed if we take a look at the body of the for loop, we see:



while ( (j<N-1) && (A[i]-A[j] > D) )

    j++;


That thus means that j++ is done at most n-1 times, since if j succeeds N-1 times, then the first constraint fails.



If we take a look at the entire for loop, we see:



int j=0;

for (int i=0; i<N; i++) {

    while ( (j<N-1) && (A[i]-A[j] > D) )

        j++;

    if (A[i]-A[j] == D) 

        return 1;

}


It is clear that the body of the for loop is repeated n times, since we set i to i=0, and stop when i >= N, and each iteration we increment i.



Now depending on the values in A we will or will not increment j (multiple times) in the body of the for loop. But regardless how many times it is done in a single iteration, at the end of the for loop, j++ is done at most n times, for the reason we mentioned above.



The condition in the while loop is executed O(n) (well at most 2×n-1 times to be precise) times as well: it is executed once each time we enter the body of the for loop, and each time after we execute a j++ command, but since both are O(n), this is done at most O(n+n) thus O(n) times.



The if condition in the for loop executed n times: once per iteration of the for loop, so again O(n).



So this indeed means that all "basic instructions" (j++, i = 0, j = 0, j < N-1, etc.) are all done either a constant number of times O(1), or a linear number of times O(n), hence the algorithm is O(n).






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    No, but you can still say "at most n times." Suffice it to say that I've been saying "the loop executes n times" my whole career, and I don't see any compelling reason to complicate that simple phrase.
    – Robert Harvey♦
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    I consider your last example correct usage.
    – Robert Harvey♦
    2 hours ago






  • 2




    @robertharvey: O(n) describes the asymptotic behaviour of a function. It is orthogonal to the purpose of that function, which is outside the realm of mathematics. Now, if I have a loop in my program, I can certainly say that the loop condition will be true g(X) times, where g(X) is a function mapping algorithm input X to integers. If I can also demonstrate that g(X) is in O(f(|X|)) for some function f which maps integers to integers, then I am completely justified in saying the loop executes O(f(N)) times where N is the size of the problem. Why shouldn't I?
    – rici
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    Although I like the discussion, I modified it to more "rigorous" notation. Something that is also noteworthy is that the error of approximative sequences is typically expressed in big oh as well, since here one typically has not enough information at all to specify the exact error (or at least not without exhaustive analysis, that might not be the scope of the paper), as is mentioned in the wiki article. Somehow I forgot about that (been away from academia for too long I guess) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation#Infinitesimal_asymptotics
    – Willem Van Onsem
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    @Robert: perhaps you disagree but I don't like saying that something happens at most n times when it can happen 2n times. OP asked a question using Big-O notation so responding with Big-O notation is not tossing a completely unfamiliar concept at them. They even identified the issue of counting executions of the test, but got the asymptote wrong. Anyway, we're obviously not going to get any further here right now and I've got a non-CS event to go to. So take care...
    – rici
    2 hours ago















up vote
10
down vote













The reason why this is O(n) is because j is not set back to 0 in the body of the for loop.



Indeed if we take a look at the body of the for loop, we see:



while ( (j<N-1) && (A[i]-A[j] > D) )

    j++;


That thus means that j++ is done at most n-1 times, since if j succeeds N-1 times, then the first constraint fails.



If we take a look at the entire for loop, we see:



int j=0;

for (int i=0; i<N; i++) {

    while ( (j<N-1) && (A[i]-A[j] > D) )

        j++;

    if (A[i]-A[j] == D) 

        return 1;

}


It is clear that the body of the for loop is repeated n times, since we set i to i=0, and stop when i >= N, and each iteration we increment i.



Now depending on the values in A we will or will not increment j (multiple times) in the body of the for loop. But regardless how many times it is done in a single iteration, at the end of the for loop, j++ is done at most n times, for the reason we mentioned above.



The condition in the while loop is executed O(n) (well at most 2×n-1 times to be precise) times as well: it is executed once each time we enter the body of the for loop, and each time after we execute a j++ command, but since both are O(n), this is done at most O(n+n) thus O(n) times.



The if condition in the for loop executed n times: once per iteration of the for loop, so again O(n).



So this indeed means that all "basic instructions" (j++, i = 0, j = 0, j < N-1, etc.) are all done either a constant number of times O(1), or a linear number of times O(n), hence the algorithm is O(n).






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    No, but you can still say "at most n times." Suffice it to say that I've been saying "the loop executes n times" my whole career, and I don't see any compelling reason to complicate that simple phrase.
    – Robert Harvey♦
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    I consider your last example correct usage.
    – Robert Harvey♦
    2 hours ago






  • 2




    @robertharvey: O(n) describes the asymptotic behaviour of a function. It is orthogonal to the purpose of that function, which is outside the realm of mathematics. Now, if I have a loop in my program, I can certainly say that the loop condition will be true g(X) times, where g(X) is a function mapping algorithm input X to integers. If I can also demonstrate that g(X) is in O(f(|X|)) for some function f which maps integers to integers, then I am completely justified in saying the loop executes O(f(N)) times where N is the size of the problem. Why shouldn't I?
    – rici
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    Although I like the discussion, I modified it to more "rigorous" notation. Something that is also noteworthy is that the error of approximative sequences is typically expressed in big oh as well, since here one typically has not enough information at all to specify the exact error (or at least not without exhaustive analysis, that might not be the scope of the paper), as is mentioned in the wiki article. Somehow I forgot about that (been away from academia for too long I guess) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation#Infinitesimal_asymptotics
    – Willem Van Onsem
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    @Robert: perhaps you disagree but I don't like saying that something happens at most n times when it can happen 2n times. OP asked a question using Big-O notation so responding with Big-O notation is not tossing a completely unfamiliar concept at them. They even identified the issue of counting executions of the test, but got the asymptote wrong. Anyway, we're obviously not going to get any further here right now and I've got a non-CS event to go to. So take care...
    – rici
    2 hours ago













up vote
10
down vote










up vote
10
down vote









The reason why this is O(n) is because j is not set back to 0 in the body of the for loop.



Indeed if we take a look at the body of the for loop, we see:



while ( (j<N-1) && (A[i]-A[j] > D) )

    j++;


That thus means that j++ is done at most n-1 times, since if j succeeds N-1 times, then the first constraint fails.



If we take a look at the entire for loop, we see:



int j=0;

for (int i=0; i<N; i++) {

    while ( (j<N-1) && (A[i]-A[j] > D) )

        j++;

    if (A[i]-A[j] == D) 

        return 1;

}


It is clear that the body of the for loop is repeated n times, since we set i to i=0, and stop when i >= N, and each iteration we increment i.



Now depending on the values in A we will or will not increment j (multiple times) in the body of the for loop. But regardless how many times it is done in a single iteration, at the end of the for loop, j++ is done at most n times, for the reason we mentioned above.



The condition in the while loop is executed O(n) (well at most 2×n-1 times to be precise) times as well: it is executed once each time we enter the body of the for loop, and each time after we execute a j++ command, but since both are O(n), this is done at most O(n+n) thus O(n) times.



The if condition in the for loop executed n times: once per iteration of the for loop, so again O(n).



So this indeed means that all "basic instructions" (j++, i = 0, j = 0, j < N-1, etc.) are all done either a constant number of times O(1), or a linear number of times O(n), hence the algorithm is O(n).






share|improve this answer














The reason why this is O(n) is because j is not set back to 0 in the body of the for loop.



Indeed if we take a look at the body of the for loop, we see:



while ( (j<N-1) && (A[i]-A[j] > D) )

    j++;


That thus means that j++ is done at most n-1 times, since if j succeeds N-1 times, then the first constraint fails.



If we take a look at the entire for loop, we see:



int j=0;

for (int i=0; i<N; i++) {

    while ( (j<N-1) && (A[i]-A[j] > D) )

        j++;

    if (A[i]-A[j] == D) 

        return 1;

}


It is clear that the body of the for loop is repeated n times, since we set i to i=0, and stop when i >= N, and each iteration we increment i.



Now depending on the values in A we will or will not increment j (multiple times) in the body of the for loop. But regardless how many times it is done in a single iteration, at the end of the for loop, j++ is done at most n times, for the reason we mentioned above.



The condition in the while loop is executed O(n) (well at most 2×n-1 times to be precise) times as well: it is executed once each time we enter the body of the for loop, and each time after we execute a j++ command, but since both are O(n), this is done at most O(n+n) thus O(n) times.



The if condition in the for loop executed n times: once per iteration of the for loop, so again O(n).



So this indeed means that all "basic instructions" (j++, i = 0, j = 0, j < N-1, etc.) are all done either a constant number of times O(1), or a linear number of times O(n), hence the algorithm is O(n).







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago

























answered 3 hours ago









Willem Van Onsem

142k16134226




142k16134226








  • 1




    No, but you can still say "at most n times." Suffice it to say that I've been saying "the loop executes n times" my whole career, and I don't see any compelling reason to complicate that simple phrase.
    – Robert Harvey♦
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    I consider your last example correct usage.
    – Robert Harvey♦
    2 hours ago






  • 2




    @robertharvey: O(n) describes the asymptotic behaviour of a function. It is orthogonal to the purpose of that function, which is outside the realm of mathematics. Now, if I have a loop in my program, I can certainly say that the loop condition will be true g(X) times, where g(X) is a function mapping algorithm input X to integers. If I can also demonstrate that g(X) is in O(f(|X|)) for some function f which maps integers to integers, then I am completely justified in saying the loop executes O(f(N)) times where N is the size of the problem. Why shouldn't I?
    – rici
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    Although I like the discussion, I modified it to more "rigorous" notation. Something that is also noteworthy is that the error of approximative sequences is typically expressed in big oh as well, since here one typically has not enough information at all to specify the exact error (or at least not without exhaustive analysis, that might not be the scope of the paper), as is mentioned in the wiki article. Somehow I forgot about that (been away from academia for too long I guess) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation#Infinitesimal_asymptotics
    – Willem Van Onsem
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    @Robert: perhaps you disagree but I don't like saying that something happens at most n times when it can happen 2n times. OP asked a question using Big-O notation so responding with Big-O notation is not tossing a completely unfamiliar concept at them. They even identified the issue of counting executions of the test, but got the asymptote wrong. Anyway, we're obviously not going to get any further here right now and I've got a non-CS event to go to. So take care...
    – rici
    2 hours ago














  • 1




    No, but you can still say "at most n times." Suffice it to say that I've been saying "the loop executes n times" my whole career, and I don't see any compelling reason to complicate that simple phrase.
    – Robert Harvey♦
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    I consider your last example correct usage.
    – Robert Harvey♦
    2 hours ago






  • 2




    @robertharvey: O(n) describes the asymptotic behaviour of a function. It is orthogonal to the purpose of that function, which is outside the realm of mathematics. Now, if I have a loop in my program, I can certainly say that the loop condition will be true g(X) times, where g(X) is a function mapping algorithm input X to integers. If I can also demonstrate that g(X) is in O(f(|X|)) for some function f which maps integers to integers, then I am completely justified in saying the loop executes O(f(N)) times where N is the size of the problem. Why shouldn't I?
    – rici
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    Although I like the discussion, I modified it to more "rigorous" notation. Something that is also noteworthy is that the error of approximative sequences is typically expressed in big oh as well, since here one typically has not enough information at all to specify the exact error (or at least not without exhaustive analysis, that might not be the scope of the paper), as is mentioned in the wiki article. Somehow I forgot about that (been away from academia for too long I guess) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation#Infinitesimal_asymptotics
    – Willem Van Onsem
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    @Robert: perhaps you disagree but I don't like saying that something happens at most n times when it can happen 2n times. OP asked a question using Big-O notation so responding with Big-O notation is not tossing a completely unfamiliar concept at them. They even identified the issue of counting executions of the test, but got the asymptote wrong. Anyway, we're obviously not going to get any further here right now and I've got a non-CS event to go to. So take care...
    – rici
    2 hours ago








1




1




No, but you can still say "at most n times." Suffice it to say that I've been saying "the loop executes n times" my whole career, and I don't see any compelling reason to complicate that simple phrase.
– Robert Harvey♦
3 hours ago




No, but you can still say "at most n times." Suffice it to say that I've been saying "the loop executes n times" my whole career, and I don't see any compelling reason to complicate that simple phrase.
– Robert Harvey♦
3 hours ago




1




1




I consider your last example correct usage.
– Robert Harvey♦
2 hours ago




I consider your last example correct usage.
– Robert Harvey♦
2 hours ago




2




2




@robertharvey: O(n) describes the asymptotic behaviour of a function. It is orthogonal to the purpose of that function, which is outside the realm of mathematics. Now, if I have a loop in my program, I can certainly say that the loop condition will be true g(X) times, where g(X) is a function mapping algorithm input X to integers. If I can also demonstrate that g(X) is in O(f(|X|)) for some function f which maps integers to integers, then I am completely justified in saying the loop executes O(f(N)) times where N is the size of the problem. Why shouldn't I?
– rici
2 hours ago




@robertharvey: O(n) describes the asymptotic behaviour of a function. It is orthogonal to the purpose of that function, which is outside the realm of mathematics. Now, if I have a loop in my program, I can certainly say that the loop condition will be true g(X) times, where g(X) is a function mapping algorithm input X to integers. If I can also demonstrate that g(X) is in O(f(|X|)) for some function f which maps integers to integers, then I am completely justified in saying the loop executes O(f(N)) times where N is the size of the problem. Why shouldn't I?
– rici
2 hours ago




1




1




Although I like the discussion, I modified it to more "rigorous" notation. Something that is also noteworthy is that the error of approximative sequences is typically expressed in big oh as well, since here one typically has not enough information at all to specify the exact error (or at least not without exhaustive analysis, that might not be the scope of the paper), as is mentioned in the wiki article. Somehow I forgot about that (been away from academia for too long I guess) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation#Infinitesimal_asymptotics
– Willem Van Onsem
2 hours ago




Although I like the discussion, I modified it to more "rigorous" notation. Something that is also noteworthy is that the error of approximative sequences is typically expressed in big oh as well, since here one typically has not enough information at all to specify the exact error (or at least not without exhaustive analysis, that might not be the scope of the paper), as is mentioned in the wiki article. Somehow I forgot about that (been away from academia for too long I guess) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation#Infinitesimal_asymptotics
– Willem Van Onsem
2 hours ago




1




1




@Robert: perhaps you disagree but I don't like saying that something happens at most n times when it can happen 2n times. OP asked a question using Big-O notation so responding with Big-O notation is not tossing a completely unfamiliar concept at them. They even identified the issue of counting executions of the test, but got the asymptote wrong. Anyway, we're obviously not going to get any further here right now and I've got a non-CS event to go to. So take care...
– rici
2 hours ago




@Robert: perhaps you disagree but I don't like saying that something happens at most n times when it can happen 2n times. OP asked a question using Big-O notation so responding with Big-O notation is not tossing a completely unfamiliar concept at them. They even identified the issue of counting executions of the test, but got the asymptote wrong. Anyway, we're obviously not going to get any further here right now and I've got a non-CS event to go to. So take care...
– rici
2 hours ago










lomo133 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















lomo133 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













lomo133 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












lomo133 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53770381%2fi-dont-understand-how-the-time-complexity-for-this-algorithm-is-calculated%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

What visual should I use to simply compare current year value vs last year in Power BI desktop

Image
0 I have column SubToBind that shows current year ratio and column PY SubToBind which shows previous year ratio. How can I simply create a card that would be displaying them both in a nice way? Something like that: I cannot achieve that with regular card, I also tried Card with States by OKViz but also unable to see both values. In KPI visual - I dont like the word "Goal", it will confuse end users. Are there any cards or other visuals that would do the job? Thanks powerbi dax powerbi-embedded share | improve this question edited Jun 11 '18 at 20:11 Oleg
Read more

Alexandru Averescu

Image
Alexandre Averescu Alexandru Averescu Naissance 3 avril 1859 Babele, Ismail  (ro) près de Izmaïl (principauté de Moldavie) Décès 2 octobre 1938 (à 79 ans) [ 1 ] Bucarest Origine   Roumanie Arme cavalerie Grade Maréchal Années de service 1901-1917 Commandement chef d'état-major général 2 e  armée 3 e  armée Groupe d'armée sud armée du Danube Conflits Guerre russo-turque de 1877-1878 Deuxième guerre balkanique Première Guerre mondiale Faits d'armes Bataille de Turtucaia/Tutrakan Bataille de Mărăști Distinctions Autres fonctions 3 fois président du Conseil des ministres ministre des Affaires étrangères ministre sans portefeuille conseiller de la Couronne modifier   Alexandre Averescu (en roumain : Alexandru Averescu .mw-parser-output .prononciation>a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Loudspeaker.svg/11px-Loudspeaker.svg.png")center
Read more

Trompette piccolo

Image
Ne doit pas être confondu avec trompette de poche. Trompette piccolo en si bémol, avec des branches d'embouchure différentes pour le si bémol (la plus courte) ou la (la plus longue) Trompette piccolo La trompette piccolo est la plus petite de la famille des trompettes. Elle joue une octave plus haut que la trompette standard en si bémol. La plupart des trompettes piccolo sont conçues pour jouer dans les deux tonalités de si bémol ou la, en utilisant une branche d'embouchure différente pour chaque tonalité. Le tube de la trompette piccolo en si bémol a une longueur moitié de celle de la trompette normale en si bémol. Des trompettes piccolo en sol, fa, ut sont également fabriquées, mais elles sont rares. La trompette soprano en ré, aussi connu comme la « trompette Bach », a été inventée vers 1890 par le facteur belge Victor-Charles Mahillon pour jouer les parties hautes de la trompette dans la musique de Bach et Haendel. La trompette piccolo moderne permet aux
Read more