Granny's Programming Pearls "inside of every large program is a small program struggling to get out" JavaRanch.com/granny.jsp
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
• Campbell Ritchie
• Devaka Cooray
• Liutauras Vilda
• Jeanne Boyarsky
• Bear Bibeault
Sheriffs:
• Paul Clapham
• Knute Snortum
• Rob Spoor
Saloon Keepers:
• Tim Moores
• Ron McLeod
• Piet Souris
• Stephan van Hulst
• Carey Brown
Bartenders:
• Tim Holloway
• Frits Walraven
• Ganesh Patekar

# Time complexity of powerset algorithm

Ranch Hand
Posts: 692
Just warming it up before my sem-IV Algorithms class , I have written a algorithm for power-set written as p(a) which i guess every 1 here aware of...
just learning about time complexities of algorithms (Big-Oh) , & correct me if i am wrong ...

algorithm:

Time complexity O(n)*O(n) = O(n^2) is it correct?if no , please explain ....thanks

Rancher
Posts: 3305
28
So, what is pw? It doesn't appear to be defined in the code here - shouldn't it be?

And here:

How many elements are in pw? Is this part really O(n), or is it maybe something else?

naved momin
Ranch Hand
Posts: 692
Now the code is complete . and This iteration increases as the no. of element in pw increases for eg:
initially pw contains just " " then 1 then 2 & 12 assume int[] a {1,2} ...so with time this iteration increases because no. of element in the pw increases.

Mike Simmons
Rancher
Posts: 3305
28

naved momin wrote:This iteration increases as the no. of element in pw increases for eg:
initially pw contains just " " then 1 then 2 & 12 assume int[] a {1,2} ...so with time this iteration increases because no. of element in the pw increases.

OK, so it increases with the number of elements, true. But so does O(n^2) or O(log(n)) or an infinite number of other functions. Do you have any reason to believe this is O(n) as opposed to one of those others?

Here's another way to look at it. If you have n elements in a set, is there a formula for number of elements in the powerset? Is there any way an algorithm to list all the elements could be faster than O(number_in_powerset)?

naved momin
Ranch Hand
Posts: 692
ya the formula is n^2 ..suppose i have 2 element in set than in power set there will be 2^2 = 4 elements
i guess its an exponential function (c^n where c > 1) what you think?

Mike Simmons
Rancher
Posts: 3305
28
I think you need to be more specific what you're talking about. First "the formula" is n^2... then you guess "it" is an exponential function. Are you talking about the same formula? Formula for what, exactly?

naved momin wrote:suppose i have 2 element in set than in power set there will be 2^2 = 4 elements

OK, good start. What if there are 3 elements? How many elements would be in the powerset? Is it 3^2, 2^3, or something else? And what if there are 4 elements?

naved momin
Ranch Hand
Posts: 692
ok. my mistake , i thought you are aware about powerset ...but not a problem lets take a quick session on powerset , it is denoted as p(s) e.g: let s be a set {1,2,3} & p(s) = {null(written as '{}' ),1,2,3,12,13,23,123}
so i guess till now you know the formula for powerset , yes it is 2^n where n is the no. of elements in set.

Mike Simmons
Rancher
Posts: 3305
28
Um, yes, thank you, I am aware of that. I'm trying to get you to focus your thoughts more clearly, though. In your previous post you were talking about a formula being n^2 - did you mean 2^n, or were you talking about something else?

I would suggest that if there are 2^n elements in the powerset, then any algorithm to list them all cannot possibly be any faster than 2^n. It might be slower, but never faster. If your objective is to list them all, then time will be at least O(P), where P is the number of elements in the powerset. Which is 2^n. So, the best possible time you will ever get is O(2^n). This suggests that your original posts talking about O(n^2) are... what's the word? Completely wrong. And I think it's because of this line:

This is not O(n), it's O(num_elements_in_pw), which appears to be O(2^(n-1)), which is O(2^n).

 Did you see how Paul cut 87% off of his electric heat bill with 82 watts of micro heaters?