我在问更多关于这对我的代码意味着什么。我能从数学上理解这些概念,只是很难理解它们在概念上的含义。例如,如果有人要对一个数据结构执行O(1)操作,我知道它必须执行的操作数量不会增长,因为有更多的项。O(n)操作意味着您将对每个元素执行一组操作。有人能帮我填一下吗?
比如O(n²)的运算会怎样? 如果一个操作是O(nlog (n))这是什么意思? 有人必须吸可卡因才能写出O(x!)吗?
我在问更多关于这对我的代码意味着什么。我能从数学上理解这些概念,只是很难理解它们在概念上的含义。例如,如果有人要对一个数据结构执行O(1)操作,我知道它必须执行的操作数量不会增长,因为有更多的项。O(n)操作意味着您将对每个元素执行一组操作。有人能帮我填一下吗?
比如O(n²)的运算会怎样? 如果一个操作是O(nlog (n))这是什么意思? 有人必须吸可卡因才能写出O(x!)吗?
当前回答
我喜欢don neufeld的答案,但我想我可以加上O(nlog n)
使用简单分治策略的算法可能是O(log n)最简单的例子是在排序列表中查找某个东西。你不需要从头开始扫描。你走到中间,你决定是向后走还是向前走,跳到中途,直到你找到你要找的东西。
如果您查看快速排序或归并排序算法,您将看到它们都采用将列表分成两半,对每一半排序(使用相同的算法,递归地),然后重新组合两半的方法。这种递归分治策略是O(nlog n)
If you think about it carefully, you'll see that quicksort does an O(n) partitioning algorithm on the whole n items, then an O(n) partitioning twice on n/2 items, then 4 times on n/4 items, etc... until you get to an n partitions on 1 item (which is degenerate). The number of times you divide n in half to get to 1 is approximately log n, and each step is O(n), so recursive divide and conquer is O(n log n). Mergesort builds the other way, starting with n recombinations of 1 item, and finishing with 1 recombination of n items, where the recombination of two sorted lists is O(n).
至于抽大麻写一个O(n!)算法,除非你别无选择。上面提到的旅行推销员问题被认为是这样一个问题。
其他回答
把它想象成垂直堆叠乐高积木(n),然后跳过它们。
O(1)表示在每一步,你什么都不做。高度保持不变。
O(n)表示在每一步,你堆叠c块,其中c1是常数。
O(n²)表示在每一步,你堆叠c2 x n个块,其中c2是一个常数,n是堆叠块的数量。
O(nlogn)表示在每一步,你堆叠c3 x n x logn个块,其中c3是一个常数,n是堆叠块的数量。
这可能太数学化了,但这是我的尝试。(我是数学家。)
如果某个东西是O(f(n)),那么它在n个元素上的运行时间将等于A f(n) + B(以时钟周期或CPU操作为单位)。理解这些常量A和B是非常关键的,它们来自特定的实现。B本质上代表你的操作的“常量开销”,例如你所做的一些预处理不依赖于集合的大小。A表示实际项目处理算法的速度。
关键在于,你可以使用大O符号来计算某物的可伸缩性。所以这些常数并不重要:如果你想弄清楚如何从10个项目扩展到10000个项目,谁会关心开销常数B呢?类似地,其他问题(见下文)肯定会超过乘法常数A的重要性。
So the real deal is f(n). If f grows not at all with n, e.g. f(n) = 1, then you'll scale fantastically---your running time will always just be A + B. If f grows linearly with n, i.e. f(n) = n, your running time will scale pretty much as best as can be expected---if your users are waiting 10 ns for 10 elements, they'll wait 10000 ns for 10000 elements (ignoring the additive constant). But if it grows faster, like n2, then you're in trouble; things will start slowing down way too much when you get larger collections. f(n) = n log(n) is a good compromise, usually: your operation can't be so simple as to give linear scaling, but you've managed to cut things down such that it'll scale much better than f(n) = n2.
实际上,这里有一些很好的例子:
O(1): retrieving an element from an array. We know exactly where it is in memory, so we just go get it. It doesn't matter if the collection has 10 items or 10000; it's still at index (say) 3, so we just jump to location 3 in memory. O(n): retrieving an element from a linked list. Here, A = 0.5, because on average you''ll have to go through 1/2 of the linked list before you find the element you're looking for. O(n2): various "dumb" sorting algorithms. Because generally their strategy involves, for each element (n), you look at all the other elements (so times another n, giving n2), then position yourself in the right place. O(n log(n)): various "smart" sorting algorithms. It turns out that you only need to look at, say, 10 elements in a 1010-element collection to intelligently sort yourself relative to everyone else in the collection. Because everyone else is also going to look at 10 elements, and the emergent behavior is orchestrated just right so that this is enough to produce a sorted list. O(n!): an algorithm that "tries everything," since there are (proportional to) n! possible combinations of n elements that might solve a given problem. So it just loops through all such combinations, tries them, then stops whenever it succeeds.
堂。neufeld的答案非常好,但我可能会分两部分解释它:首先,大多数算法都属于O()的粗略层次结构。然后,你可以看看每一种算法,得出那种时间复杂度的典型算法是怎么做的。
出于实际目的,似乎唯一重要的O()是:
O(1) "constant time" - the time required is independent of the size of the input. As a rough category, I would include algorithms such as hash lookups and Union-Find here, even though neither of those are actually O(1). O(log(n)) "logarithmic" - it gets slower as you get larger inputs, but once your input gets fairly large, it won't change enough to worry about. If your runtime is ok with reasonably-sized data, you can swamp it with as much additional data as you want and it'll still be ok. O(n) "linear" - the more input, the longer it takes, in an even tradeoff. Three times the input size will take roughly three times as long. O(n log(n)) "better than quadratic" - increasing the input size hurts, but it's still manageable. The algorithm is probably decent, it's just that the underlying problem is more difficult (decisions are less localized with respect to the input data) than those problems that can be solved in linear time. If your input sizes are getting up there, don't assume that you could necessarily handle twice the size without changing your architecture around (eg by moving things to overnight batch computations, or not doing things per-frame). It's ok if the input size increases a little bit, though; just watch out for multiples. O(n^2) "quadratic" - it's really only going to work up to a certain size of your input, so pay attention to how big it could get. Also, your algorithm may suck -- think hard to see if there's an O(n log(n)) algorithm that would give you what you need. Once you're here, feel very grateful for the amazing hardware we've been gifted with. Not long ago, what you are trying to do would have been impossible for all practical purposes. O(n^3) "cubic" - not qualitatively all that different from O(n^2). The same comments apply, only more so. There's a decent chance that a more clever algorithm could shave this time down to something smaller, eg O(n^2 log(n)) or O(n^2.8...), but then again, there's a good chance that it won't be worth the trouble. (You're already limited in your practical input size, so the constant factors that may be required for the more clever algorithms will probably swamp their advantages for practical cases. Also, thinking is slow; letting the computer chew on it may save you time overall.) O(2^n) "exponential" - the problem is either fundamentally computationally hard or you're being an idiot. These problems have a recognizable flavor to them. Your input sizes are capped at a fairly specific hard limit. You'll know quickly whether you fit into that limit.
就是这样。还有很多其他的可能性在这些之间(或大于O(2^n)),但它们在实践中不经常发生,它们与这些中的任何一个在性质上没有太大的不同。三次算法已经有点牵强了;我之所以把它们包括进来,是因为我经常遇到它们,值得一提(例如矩阵乘法)。
这类算法到底发生了什么?我认为你有一个很好的开始,尽管有很多例子不符合这些特征。但对于上述情况,我认为通常是这样的:
O(1) - you're only looking at most at a fixed-size chunk of your input data, and possibly none of it. Example: the maximum of a sorted list. Or your input size is bounded. Example: addition of two numbers. (Note that addition of N numbers is linear time.) O(log n) - each element of your input tells you enough to ignore a large fraction of the rest of the input. Example: when you look at an array element in binary search, its value tells you that you can ignore "half" of your array without looking at any of it. Or similarly, the element you look at gives you enough of a summary of a fraction of the remaining input that you won't need to look at it. There's nothing special about halves, though -- if you can only ignore 10% of your input at each step, it's still logarithmic. O(n) - you do some fixed amount of work per input element. (But see below.) O(n log(n)) - there are a few variants. You can divide the input into two piles (in no more than linear time), solve the problem independently on each pile, and then combine the two piles to form the final solution. The independence of the two piles is key. Example: classic recursive mergesort. Each linear-time pass over the data gets you halfway to your solution. Example: quicksort if you think in terms of the maximum distance of each element to its final sorted position at each partitioning step (and yes, I know that it's actually O(n^2) because of degenerate pivot choices. But practically speaking, it falls into my O(n log(n)) category.) O(n^2) - you have to look at every pair of input elements. Or you don't, but you think you do, and you're using the wrong algorithm. O(n^3) - um... I don't have a snappy characterization of these. It's probably one of: You're multiplying matrices You're looking at every pair of inputs but the operation you do requires looking at all of the inputs again the entire graph structure of your input is relevant O(2^n) - you need to consider every possible subset of your inputs.
这些都不严谨。尤其是线性时间算法(O(n)):我可以举出很多例子,你必须看所有的输入,然后是一半,然后是一半,等等。或者反过来——将输入对折叠在一起,然后对输出进行递归。这些不符合上面的描述,因为你不是只看一次每个输入,但它仍然是线性时间。不过,在99.2%的情况下,线性时间意味着只查看一次每个输入。
Big-O背后的“直觉
想象一下,当x趋于无穷时,x上的两个函数f(x)和g(x)之间的“竞争”。
现在,如果从某一点开始(某个x点),一个函数的值总是比另一个高,那么我们称这个函数比另一个“快”。
例如,对于每x > 100,你看到f(x) > g(x),那么f(x)比g(x)“快”。
在这种情况下,我们可以说g(x) = O(f(x))F (x)对g(x)提出了某种“速度限制”,因为最终它超过了它,并将其永远甩在后面。
这并不完全是大o符号的定义,它还指出,对于某个常数C, f(x)只需要大于C*g(x)(这只是另一种说法,你不能通过将g(x)乘以常数因子来帮助g(x)赢得竞争- f(x)最终总是会赢)。正式的定义也使用绝对值。但我希望我能让它更直观。
告诉你8年前的log(n)意味着你必须把一个长度为nlog的东西切成两半的次数,让它变成大小为n=1:p
O(nlogn)通常是排序 O(n²)通常是比较所有元素对