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。

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。

有一件事由于某种原因还没有被提及:

当你看到像O(2^n)或O(n^3)这样的算法时，这通常意味着你将不得不接受一个不完美的问题答案，以获得可接受的性能。

在处理优化问题时，像这样的正确解决方案很常见。在合理的时间内给出一个近乎正确的答案，总比在机器腐烂成灰尘很久之后才给出一个正确答案要好。

以国际象棋为例:我不知道正确的解决方案是什么，但它可能是O(n^50)或更糟。从理论上讲，任何计算机都不可能真正计算出正确答案——即使你用宇宙中的每个粒子作为计算元素，在宇宙生命周期内尽可能短的时间内执行一项操作，你仍然会剩下很多零。(量子计算机能否解决这个问题是另一回事。)

大多数Jon Bentley的书(例如Programming Pearls)都以一种非常实用的方式涵盖了这些内容。他的这次演讲中就包括了一个这样的快排分析。

虽然与这个问题并不完全相关，但Knuth提出了一个有趣的想法:在高中微积分课上教授Big-O符号，尽管我觉得这个想法相当古怪。

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。

只是为了回应我上面帖子的一些评论:

Domenic - I'm on this site, and I care. Not for pedantry's sake, but because we - as programmers - typically care about precision. Using O( ) notation incorrectly in the style that some have done here renders it kind of meaningless; we may just as well say something takes n^2 units of time as O( n^2 ) under the conventions used here. Using the O( ) adds nothing. It's not just a small discrepancy between common usage and mathematical precision that I'm talking about, it's the difference between it being meaningful and it not.

我知道很多很多优秀的程序员都准确地使用这些术语。说“哦，我们是程序员，所以我们不在乎”会降低整个企业的成本。

一个接一个-嗯，不完全是，尽管我同意你的观点。对于任意大的n，它不是O(1)这是O()的定义。它只是表明O()对于有界n的适用性有限，在这里我们更愿意讨论所走的步数，而不是这个数字的界限。