Solving Inequalities Arising from Algorithms Study

In summary: I think I understand what you are saying, though. You are saying that they just chose any arbitrary N, and since it's greater than N_0^* it doesn't matter what it is. So they just set N = 1,000,000,000. Then the rest of the proof just shows that the theorem is still true.
  • #1
scorpion4377
9
0
Hey everybody,

I'm a little embarrassed to be asking this question as I feel it is extremely easy, but I will do so anyway. I'm self studying some algorithms, and the book that I'm using claims that

[itex]a n^2 + b n + c \in \Omega(n^2)[/itex]

Of course, this is equivalent to saying that there exists [itex] c_1, c_2 \in ℝ^+[/itex] such that

[itex] 0 \leq c_1 n^2 \leq a n^2 + b n + c \leq c_2 n^2 [/itex] for all [itex] n \geq n_0^* [/itex]

In order to verify this, the book says that I should let [itex] c_1 = a/4 [/itex], [itex] c_2 = 7a/4[/itex] and [itex] n \geq 2 \cdot max(|b|/a, \sqrt{|c|/a})[/itex]. This would imply that

[itex] 0 \leq a n^2/4 \leq a n^2 + b n + c \leq 7a n^2/4 [/itex] for all [itex] n \geq n_0^* [/itex]

I understand that they picked [itex] c_1 [/itex] and [itex] c_2 [/itex] (almost) arbitrarily. However, I just can't see how they picked their lower limit on [itex] n[/itex] given these two constants. I've been messing around with the quadratic equation for a little while now and I just fail to see it.

Any help would be appreciated! I just want to understand the logic of their selection of [itex] n_0^*[/itex]. THanks!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Hey scorpion4377 and welcome to the forums.

I'm thinking that it has to do with the quadratic term of taking an^2 + bn + c into (SQRT(a)n + d)^2 + e for some d and e. You can then show that that this term is greater than or equal to an^2 but less than or equal to some other multiple of n^2.

Do you have any extra information for the coeffecients? I'm assuming (but this may be wrong) that a,b,c are all >= 0 and if this is the case you can get an upper bound for a constant that bounds the expression.

One example to bound the upper limit is to take say (xn + y)^2 and choose a value of (zn)^2 where zn > xn + y which implies z > (xn + y)/n = (xn/n) + (y/n) = x + y/n.
 
  • #3


Thanks for your response! I'll take a closer look at it when I get out of work =P

The problem states that a > 0, but there are no restrictions on the other two coefficients.
 
  • #4


For large enough n, an2 completely dominates the quadratic, so c1<a<c2. will always work.
 
  • #5


mathman said:
For large enough n, an2 completely dominates the quadratic, so c1<a<c2. will always work.

That's exactly what the "informal" use of theta notation shows. I totally understand (and believe) the informal justification, but I'm having trouble with showing it formally.
 
  • #6


scorpion4377 said:
That's exactly what the "informal" use of theta notation shows. I totally understand (and believe) the informal justification, but I'm having trouble with showing it formally.

For any ε > 0 and n > N(ε), |bn + c| < εn2, so c1 = a-ε and c2 = a+ε
 
  • #7


scorpion4377 said:
I'm self studying some algorithms, and the book that I'm using claims that
[itex]a n^2 + b n + c \in \Omega(n^2)[/itex]
Of course, this is equivalent to saying that there exists [itex] c_1, c_2 \in ℝ^+[/itex] such that

[itex] 0 \leq c_1 n^2 \leq a n^2 + b n + c \leq c_2 n^2 [/itex] for all [itex] n \geq n_0^* [/itex]

In order to verify this, the book says that I should let [itex] c_1 = a/4 [/itex], [itex] c_2 = 7a/4[/itex] and [itex] n \geq 2 \cdot max(|b|/a, \sqrt{|c|/a})[/itex].
First, need to specify that a > 0.
This would imply that
[itex] 0 \leq a n^2/4 \leq a n^2 + b n + c \leq 7a n^2/4 [/itex] for all [itex] n \geq n_0^* [/itex]
No, it doesn't imply that exactly. I does suggest that this is what you need to show.
Let's work that backwards a bit for [itex] a n^2/4 \leq a n^2 + b n + c [/itex]. It would follow from [itex] 0 \leq 3a n^2 + 4b n + 4c [/itex]. The form of the lower bound for n suggests we need to break the b and c terms apart so that we have two expressions each ≥ 0, one involving a and b, the other involving a and c:
[itex] 3a n^2 + 4b n + 4c = (2a n^2 + 4b n) + (a n^2 + 4c)[/itex]
[itex] 2a n^2 + 4b n \geq 4|b|n + 4bn \geq 0[/itex]
See if you can apply this approach to get the rest.
 
  • #8


Oops. I didn't mean to imply that it's already true, but instead that it is what I still have to show. I see where you are coming from now.

[itex] 2a n^2 + 4b n \geq 4|b|n + 4bn \geq 0[/itex] is true if [itex]2a n^2 \geq 4|b|n[/itex]. This would be true assuming that [itex] n \geq 2|b| / a [/itex]. On the other hand:
[itex]an^2 + 4c \geq 4|c|+ 4c \geq 4 ( |c| + c ) \geq 0[/itex] if [itex] an^2 \geq 4|c| [/itex] This would imply that [itex] n \geq 2\sqrt{|c|/a}[/itex].

And now, I see that both inequalities are true if [itex] n \geq 2 max( |b|/a, \sqrt{|c|/a}) [/itex].

Working backwards, I could now show that the first inequality is true. I guess I would have to apply the same techniques to the other side, and I'm sure that I'd get the same bounds on [itex]n[/itex]. I will work this out on a piece of paper on my own in a bit.

Thank you so much for your help! I really appreciate everybody's advice!
 
Last edited:
  • #9


mathman said:
For any ε > 0 and n > N(ε), |bn + c| < εn2, so c1 = a-ε and c2 = a+ε

Again, that's what I'm trying to prove. If I could prove this, the original theorem would be trivial for me.

I really do appreciate the help, of course! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
 
  • #10


|bn + c|/n2 ≤ |b|/n +|c|/n2 -> 0 monotonically.
Fix ε, find N satisfying |b|/N +|c|/N2 < ε.

I don't know how to formalize any further.
 
Last edited:
  • #11


I see now. Sorry for the misunderstanding!
 

Related to Solving Inequalities Arising from Algorithms Study

1. What is the purpose of studying inequalities arising from algorithms?

The purpose of studying inequalities arising from algorithms is to identify and address any disparities or biases that may exist within algorithms used in various industries and systems. By understanding these inequalities, we can work towards creating more equitable and fair algorithms that do not perpetuate discrimination.

2. How do algorithms contribute to inequality?

Algorithms can contribute to inequality in several ways. They can reinforce existing biases and discrimination by using biased data or perpetuating discriminatory patterns. Algorithms can also create new forms of inequality by favoring certain groups over others, such as in hiring or loan approval processes. Additionally, algorithms can have unintended consequences that disproportionately affect marginalized communities.

3. What factors should be considered when studying inequalities arising from algorithms?

When studying inequalities arising from algorithms, it is important to consider the data used to create the algorithm, the intended purpose of the algorithm, and the potential impact on different groups. Other factors to consider include the transparency of the algorithm, the potential for human oversight and intervention, and the responsibility of those creating and using the algorithm to address any inequalities that may arise.

4. What steps can be taken to mitigate inequalities arising from algorithms?

There are several steps that can be taken to mitigate inequalities arising from algorithms. These include diversifying the data used to create the algorithms, regularly evaluating and testing the algorithm for potential biases, providing transparency in the decision-making process of the algorithm, and implementing human oversight and intervention to catch and address any discriminatory outcomes. It is also important for those creating and using algorithms to actively work towards creating more equitable and fair systems.

5. How can the study of inequalities arising from algorithms benefit society?

The study of inequalities arising from algorithms can benefit society by promoting fairness and equity in various industries and systems. By identifying and addressing these inequalities, we can work towards creating more just and inclusive systems that do not perpetuate discrimination. This can lead to a more equal and just society for all individuals, regardless of their race, gender, or other characteristics.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Engineering and Comp Sci Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
823
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Engineering and Comp Sci Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
7
Views
845
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
861
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
Replies
5
Views
949
Back
Top