We Keep Coding

Big O complexity of nested loop depending on changing fraction result

Being relatively new to Big-Oh Notation and complexity analysis, I have been asked to determine the Big-Oh (tightest upper bound) time complexity of the following code.
Now as far as I can tell, for every iteration after the very first one (for which it would only run exactly once) the inner loop runs x2 meaning x times.
In itself this would be O(x).
y is never changed throughout the entire execution of the algorithm. However, n is incremented in every iteration, which affects the exit condition of the outer loop.
Because of the constant incrementation of n, the fraction serving as the exit condition of the outer loop becomes smaller and smaller.
Now if there was something like y/=2, and not y/n, every single time, I would immediately go for O(log y) runtime of the outer loop, but because of the changing denominator I'm thinking that we could view this as a factor, which --according to what I know about Big-Oh-- can be ignored, hence O(y) complexity of the outer loop, meaning O(x*y) complexity of the whole method.
Could anybody provide me with some guidance or a few tips regarding this? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks a lot!
void a (long x, long y){
long n = 0, x2 = n;
do {
do {
x2--;
} while (x2 > 0);
n++;
x2 = x;
} while (n < y / n);
}
EDIT: Thanks everybody for helping me out. Just as a little follow-up question: What would be the big-o complexity if the code were instead written like this:
void a(int x, int y) {
int n = 1;
do {
x++;
n++;
} while(y/n > x);
}
I tried rearranging it a little (e.g. y > n*x) and thinking of n as a constant that could be dropped which led me to believe that this would be O(y), but I feel like there is something I just don't yet understand about how these fractional conditions can be expressed in big O notation.

Could anybody provide me with some guidance or a few tips regarding this?
When in doubt count the operations performed.
For the purposes of complexity analysis1, it is a safe assumption that any primitive operation (arithmetic, test, branch) takes a constant amount of time. For these purposes, you can further assume that all primitive operations take the same time. So just add them all up.
Then work out an algebraic formula for the number of operations performed as a function of your variables; e.g. your x and y.
The other thing is that in order to figure out the complexity you will need to understand how the code works. Which can be a bit tricky when you have a mystery function like this one.
But even this one can be understood with some analytical thinking. For example, you can work out how many times x2 is going to be decremented in the inner loop ... by looking at the places where x2 is assigned to.
1 - This only applies to complexity analysis. If you are trying to estimate performance, these assumptions are not correct. Different operations take different times, and in some cases the time taken for a given operation could vary depending on the context; e.g. whether or not you get a cache hit. This is part of the reason that even roughly accurate a priori estimates of performance are really hard work.

Assuming the function is actually executed as written, the outer loop runs proportionally to sqrt(y) times, so the complexity of the entire function is O(x * sqrt(y)).
(It's worth noting that in real life, since the function has no side-effects, an optimizing compiler would probably replace it with a function that does nothing.)

Big O notation explanation nested while loop

I was wondering what the big o notation is for the following (java)code:
while (n > 0) {
while (n > 0){
n-- ;
}
}
If I use n = 10 it will do one iteration in the outer loop and 10 inside the inner loop. So a total of 11 iterations right?
if I use n = 100 it will de one iteration in the outer loop and 100 inside the inner loop. So a total of 101 iterations right?
But this is the point where I got stuck. Because I think the notation is O(n). Simply because I think the iteration are almost equal to n.
But I don't know how to prove it?
I am not that much in math so a clear explanation would be appriciated

Informally speaking, for positive arguments, the outer loop takes exactly one iteration, as in the inner loop n is decreased to zero. The inner loop will take exactly n iterations, so the runtime complexity of the inner loop is O(n). In total, although the termination condition of the outer loop syntactically depends on n, it is in fact independent from n. The overall complexity can be seen as O(n+c) where c is a constant representing the execution of the outer loop. However, O(n+c) equals O(n).
What probably puzzles you is that in your terminology, you speak of a number of 101 iterations of a loop, where you in fact refer to two different loops.

It's O(n), because the outer loop runs one single time. When the inner loop finishes, then the condition for the outer loop is also false. Therefore the outer loop is not important to the O notation.

Yes, it's O(n). Mathematical proofs for even simple algorithms are not easy, however.
What you could do is apply weakest precondition to formally analyze this.
See this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_transformer_semantics#While_loop
Informally, it's easy to see that after the inner while n >= 0 must be true, regardless of what happens inside the inner loop. And if n >= 0 then the outer while will end. As this happens every single time after the inner while (regardless of it's contents), then the outer loop never executes more than once.
Weakest precondition can be used to proof this more formally, but if you apply it to bigger problems your head will definitely start to ache. It's educational though.

Calculating time complexity by just seeing the algorithm code

I have currently learned the code of all sorting algorithms used and understood their functioning. However as a part of these, one should also be capable to find the time and space complexity. I have seen people just looking at the loops and deriving the complexity. Can someone guide me towards the best practice for achieving this. The given example code is for "Shell sort". What should be the strategy used to understand and calculate from code itself. Please help! Something like step count method. Need to understand how we can do asymptotic analysis from code itself. Please help.
int i,n=a.length,diff=n/2,interchange,temp;
while(diff>0) {
interchange=0;
for(i=0;i<n-diff;i++) {
if(a[i]>a[i+diff]) {
temp=a[i];
a[i]=a[i+diff];
a[i+diff]=temp;
interchange=1;
}
}
if(interchange==0) {
diff=diff/2;
}
}

Since the absolute lower bound on worst-case of a comparison-sorting algorithm is O(n log n), evidently one can't do any better. The same complexity holds here.
Worst-case time complexity:
1. Inner loop
Let's first start analyzing the inner loop:
for(i=0;i<n-diff;i++) {
if(a[i]>a[i+diff]) {
temp=a[i];
a[i]=a[i+diff];
a[i+diff]=temp;
interchange=1;
}
}
Since we don't know much (anything) about the structure of a on this level, it is definitely possible that the condition holds, and thus a swap occurs. A conservative analysis thus says that it is possible that interchange can be 0 or 1 at the end of the loop. We know however that if we will execute the loop a second time, with the same diff value.
As you comment yourself, the loop will be executed O(n-diff) times. Since all instructions inside the loop take constant time. The time complexity of the loop itself is O(n-diff) as well.
Now the question is how many times can interchange be 1 before it turns to 0. The maximum bound is that an item that was placed at the absolute right is the minimal element, and thus will keep "swapping" until it reaches the start of the list. So the inner loop itself is repeated at most: O(n/diff) times. As a result the computational effort of the loop is worst-case:
O(n^2/diff-n)=O(n^2/diff-n)
2. Outer loop with different diff
The outer loop relies on the value of diff. Starts with a value of n/2, given interchange equals 1 at the end of the loop, something we cannot prove will not be the case, a new iteration will be performed with diff being set to diff/2. This is repeated until diff < 1. This means diff will take all powers of 2 up till n/2:
1 2 4 8 ... n/2
Now we can make an analysis by summing:
log2 n
------
\
/ O(n^2/2^i-n) = O(n^2)
------
i = 0
where i represents *log2(diff) of a given iteration. If we work this out, we get O(n2) worst case time complexity.
Note (On the lower bound of worst-case comparison sort): One can proof no comparison sort algorithm exists with a worst-case time complexity of O(n log n).
This is because for a list with n items, there are n! possible orderings. For each ordering, there is a different way one needs to reorganize the list.
Since using a comparison can split the set of possible orderings into two equals parts at the best, it will require at least log2(n!) comparisons to find out which ordering we are talking about. The complexity of log2(n) can be calculated using the Stirling approximation:
n
/\
|
| log(x) dx = n log n - n = O(n log n)
\/
1
Best-case time complexity: in the best case, the list is evidently ordered. In that case the inner loop will never perform the if-then part. As a consequence, the interchange will not be set to 1 and therefore after executing the for loop one time. The outer loop will still be repeated O(log n) times, thus the time complexity is O(n log n).

Look at the loops and try to figure out how many times they execute. Start from the innermost ones.
In the given example (not the easiest one to begin with), the for loop (innermost) is excuted for i in range [0,n-diff], i.e. it is executed exactly n-diff times.
What is done inside that loop doesn't really matter as long as it takes "constant time", i.e. there is a finite number of atomic operations.
Now the outer loop is executed as long as diff>0. This behavior is complex because an iteration can decrease diff or not (it is decreased when no inverted pair was found).
Now you can say that diff will be decreased log(n) times (because it is halved until 0), and between every decrease the inner loop is run "a certain number of times".
An exercised eye will also recognize interleaved passes of bubblesort and conclude that this number of times will not exceed the number of elements involved, i.e. n-diff, but that's about all that can be said "at a glance".
Complete analysis of the algorithm is an horrible mess, as the array gets progressively better and better sorted, which will influence the number of inner loops.

Big O for 3 nested loops

A Big O notation question...What is the Big O for the following code:
for (int i = n; i > 0; i = i / 2){
for (int j = 0; j < n; j++){
for (int k = 0; k < n; k++){
count++;
}
}
}
My Thoughts:
So breaking it down, I think the outside loop is O(log2(n)), then each of the inner loops is O(n) which would result in O(n^2 * log2(n)) Question #1 is that correct?
Question #2:
when combining nested loops is it always just as simple as multiply the Big O of each loop?

When loop counters do not depend on one another, it's always possible to work from the inside outward.
The innermost loop always takes time O(n), because it loops n times regardless of the values of j and i.
When the second loop runs, it runs for O(n) iterations, on each iteration doing O(n) work to run the innermost loop. This takes time O(n2).
Finally, when the outer loop runs, it does O(n2) work per iteration. It also runs for O(log n) iterations, since it runs equal to the number of times you have to divide n by two before you reach 1. Consequently, the total work is O(n2 log n).
In general, you cannot just multiply loops together, since their bounds might depend on one another. In this case, though, since there is no dependency, the runtimes can just be multiplied. Hopefully the above reasoning sheds some light on why this is - it's because if you work from the inside out thinking about how much work each loop does and how many times it does it, the runtimes end up getting multiplied together.
Hope this helps!

Yes, this is correct: the outer loop is logN, the other two are N each, for the total of O(N^2*LogN)
In the simple cases, yes. In more complex cases, when loop indexes start at numbers indicated by other indexes, the calculations are more complex.

To answer this slightly (note: slightly) more formally, say T(n) is the time (or number of operations) required to complete the algorithm. Then, for the outer loop, T(n) = log n*T2(n), where T2(n) is the number of operations inside the loop (ignoring any constants). Similarly, T2(n) = n*T3(n) = n*n.
Then, use the following theorem:
If f1(n) = O(g1(n)) and f2(n) = O(g2(n)), then f1(n)×f2(n) = O(g1(n)×g2(n))
(source and proof)
This leaves us with T(n) = O(n2logn).
"Combining nested loops" is just an application of this theorem. The trouble can be in figuring out exactly how many operations each loop uses, which in this case is simple.

You can proceed formally using Sigma Notation, to faithfully imitate your loops:

BigO running time on some methods

Ok, these are all pretty simple methods, and there are a few of them, so I didnt want to just create multiple questions when they are all the same thing. BigO is my weakness. I just cant figure out how they come up with these answers. Is there anyway you can give me some insight into your thinking for analyzing running times of some of these methods? How do you break it down? How should I think when I see something like these? (specifically the second one, I dont get how thats O(1))

function f1:
loop 3 times
loop n times
Therefore O(3*n) which is effectively O(n).
function f2:
loop 50 times
O(50) is effectively O(1).
We know it will loop 50 times because it will go until n = n - (n / 50) is 0. For this to be true, it must iterate 50 times (n - (n / 50)*50 = 0).
function f3:
loop n times
loop n times
Therefore O(n^2).
function f4:
recurse n times
You know this because worst case is that n = high - low + 1. Disregard the +1.
That means that n = high - low.
To terminate,
arr[hi] * arr[low] > 10
Assume that this doesn't occur until low is incremented to the highest it can go (high).
This means n = high - 0 and we must recurse up to n times.
function 5:
loops ceil(log_2(n)) times
We know this because of the m/=2.
For example, let n=10. log_2(10) = 3.3, the ceiling of which is 4.
10 / 2 =
5 / 2 =
2.5 / 2 =
1.25 / 2 =
0.75
In total, there are 4 iterations.

You get an n^2 analysis when performing a loop within a loop, such as the third method.
However, the first method doesn't a n^2 timing analysis because the first loop is defined as running three times. This makes the timing for the first one 3n, but we don't care about numbers for Big-O.
The second one, introduces an interesting paradigm, where despite the fact that you have a single loop, the timing analysis is still O(1). This is because if you were to chart the timing it takes to perform this method, it wouldn't behave as O(n) for smaller numbers. For larger numbers it becomes obvious.
For the fourth method, you have an O(n) timing because you're recursive function call is passing lo + 1. This is similar to if you were using a for loop and incrementing with lo++/++lo.
The last one has a O(log n) timing because your dividing your variable by two. Just remember than anything that reminds you of a binary search will have a log n timing.
There is also another trick to timing analysis. Say you had a loop within a loop, and within each of the two loops you were reading lines from a file or popping of elements from a stack. This actually would only be a O(n) method, because a file only has a certain number of lines you can read, and a stack only has a certain number of elements you can pop off.

The general idea of big-O notation is this: it gives a rough answer to the question "If you're given a set of N items, and you have to perform some operation repeatedly on these items, how many times will you need to perform this operation?" I say a rough answer, because it (most of the time) doesn't give a precise answer of "5*N+35", but just "N". It's like a ballpark. You don't really care about the precise answer, you just want to know how bad it will get when N gets large. So answers like O(N), O(N*N), O(logN) and O(N!) are typical, because they each represent sort of a "class" of answers, which you can compare to each other. An algorithm with O(N) will perform way better than an algorithm with O(N*N) when N gets large enough, it doesn't matter how lengthy the operation is itself.
So I break it down thus: First identify what the N will be. In the examples above it's pretty obvious - it's the size of the input array, because that determines how many times we will loop. Sometimes it's not so obvious, and sometimes you have multiple input data, so instead of just N you also get M and other letters (and then the answer is something like O(N*M*M)).
Then, when I have my N figured out, I try to identify the loop which depends on N. Actually, these two things often get identified together, as they are pretty much tied together.
And, lastly of course, I have to figure out how many iterations the program will make depending on N. And to make it easier, I don't really try to count them, just try to recognize the typical answers - O(1), O(N), O(N*N), O(logN), O(N!) or perhaps some other power of N. The O(N!) is actually pretty rare, because it's so inefficient, that implementing it would be pointless.
If you get an answer of something like N*N+N+1, then just discard the smaller ones, because, again, when N gets large, the others don't matter anymore. And ignore if the operation is repeated some fixed number of times. O(5*N) is the same as O(N), because it's the ballpark we're looking for.
Added: As asked in the comments, here are the analysis of the first two methods:
The first one is easy. There are only two loops, the inner one is O(N), and the outer one just repeats that 3 times. So it's still O(N). (Remember - O(3N) = O(N)).
The second one is tricky. I'm not really sure about it. After looking at it for a while I understood why it loops at most only 50 times. Since this is not dependant on N at all, it counts as O(1). However, if you were to pass it, say, an array of only 10 items, all positive, it would go into an infinite loop. That's O(∞), I guess. So which one is it? I don't know...
I don't think there's a formal way of determining the big-O number for an algorithm. It's like the halting problem. In fact, come to think of it, if you could universally determine the big-O for a piece of code, you could also determine if it ever halts or not, thus contradicting the halting problem. But that's just my musings.
Typically I just go by... dunno, sort of a "gut feeling". Once you "get" what the Big-O represents, it becomes pretty intuitive. But for complicated algorithms it's not always possible to determine. Take Quicksort for example. On average it's O(N*logN), but depending on the data it can degrade to O(N*N). The questions you'll get on the test though should have clear answers.

The second one is 50 because big O is a function of the length of the input. That is if the input size changes from 1 million to 1 billion, the runtime should increase by 1000 if the function is O(N) and 1 million if it's O(n^2). However the second function runs in time 50 regardless of the input length, so it's O(1). Technically it would be O(50) but constants don't matter for big O.