Big O summation and additivity











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I'm not sure whether the following equality is correct, or rather, whether my interpretation of it is correct:
$$sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) = O(sum_{i=0}^n f(i)) qquad (1)$$



The way I interpret the LHS is that $i$ is a function of $n$ and each $f(i)$ becomes essentially a function of n $f(i) = f(i(n))$, so now I am summing a bunch of functions in n and invoke the property:
$$O(f(n)) + O(g(n)) = O(f(n) + g(n))$$
Assuming all functions are positive. This also implies a change of variables; i.e., $O$ on RHS is with respect to $n$. Feels kinda wonky frankly.



Edit:



Here is one transformation from a book that made me think that (1) is a thing (ofc I don't know what their actual reasoning was 'cause they didn't provide any step by step solution):



$$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}(lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil O(i)) = O(nsum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}{iover2^{i+1}}) qquad (2)$$



Assuming I reduce the summation on the LHS to:
$$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}O({niover2^{i+1}})$$



Then I end up with (1)..
As far as I understand, the line of reasoning that produced the LHS of (2) was you loop over $logn$ some levels of a complete binary tree, and on each height $i$ you have max $lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil$ nodes, and on each you invoke a function that runs in $O(i)$.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • It seems there is something wrong in that $sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) = O(sum_{i=0}^n f(i))$, in which context have you found that?
    – gimusi
    Nov 26 at 14:20










  • Well, that's the question. Is it wrong?
    – zagortenay333
    Nov 26 at 14:21










  • I'm not sure. In which context did you find that? What $f(1), f(2),...,f(n)$ would represent?
    – gimusi
    Nov 26 at 14:22










  • Well, I'm assuming context-free here. I.e., the those are just positive functions from naturals to reals let's say. I did find in some context where it seems like the bound was found that way. I'll give an example above.
    – zagortenay333
    Nov 26 at 14:25










  • So the functions are functions of the variable h? Maybe the index $n$ should be equal to $i$?
    – gimusi
    Nov 26 at 14:41















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I'm not sure whether the following equality is correct, or rather, whether my interpretation of it is correct:
$$sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) = O(sum_{i=0}^n f(i)) qquad (1)$$



The way I interpret the LHS is that $i$ is a function of $n$ and each $f(i)$ becomes essentially a function of n $f(i) = f(i(n))$, so now I am summing a bunch of functions in n and invoke the property:
$$O(f(n)) + O(g(n)) = O(f(n) + g(n))$$
Assuming all functions are positive. This also implies a change of variables; i.e., $O$ on RHS is with respect to $n$. Feels kinda wonky frankly.



Edit:



Here is one transformation from a book that made me think that (1) is a thing (ofc I don't know what their actual reasoning was 'cause they didn't provide any step by step solution):



$$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}(lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil O(i)) = O(nsum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}{iover2^{i+1}}) qquad (2)$$



Assuming I reduce the summation on the LHS to:
$$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}O({niover2^{i+1}})$$



Then I end up with (1)..
As far as I understand, the line of reasoning that produced the LHS of (2) was you loop over $logn$ some levels of a complete binary tree, and on each height $i$ you have max $lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil$ nodes, and on each you invoke a function that runs in $O(i)$.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • It seems there is something wrong in that $sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) = O(sum_{i=0}^n f(i))$, in which context have you found that?
    – gimusi
    Nov 26 at 14:20










  • Well, that's the question. Is it wrong?
    – zagortenay333
    Nov 26 at 14:21










  • I'm not sure. In which context did you find that? What $f(1), f(2),...,f(n)$ would represent?
    – gimusi
    Nov 26 at 14:22










  • Well, I'm assuming context-free here. I.e., the those are just positive functions from naturals to reals let's say. I did find in some context where it seems like the bound was found that way. I'll give an example above.
    – zagortenay333
    Nov 26 at 14:25










  • So the functions are functions of the variable h? Maybe the index $n$ should be equal to $i$?
    – gimusi
    Nov 26 at 14:41













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











I'm not sure whether the following equality is correct, or rather, whether my interpretation of it is correct:
$$sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) = O(sum_{i=0}^n f(i)) qquad (1)$$



The way I interpret the LHS is that $i$ is a function of $n$ and each $f(i)$ becomes essentially a function of n $f(i) = f(i(n))$, so now I am summing a bunch of functions in n and invoke the property:
$$O(f(n)) + O(g(n)) = O(f(n) + g(n))$$
Assuming all functions are positive. This also implies a change of variables; i.e., $O$ on RHS is with respect to $n$. Feels kinda wonky frankly.



Edit:



Here is one transformation from a book that made me think that (1) is a thing (ofc I don't know what their actual reasoning was 'cause they didn't provide any step by step solution):



$$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}(lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil O(i)) = O(nsum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}{iover2^{i+1}}) qquad (2)$$



Assuming I reduce the summation on the LHS to:
$$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}O({niover2^{i+1}})$$



Then I end up with (1)..
As far as I understand, the line of reasoning that produced the LHS of (2) was you loop over $logn$ some levels of a complete binary tree, and on each height $i$ you have max $lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil$ nodes, and on each you invoke a function that runs in $O(i)$.










share|cite|improve this question















I'm not sure whether the following equality is correct, or rather, whether my interpretation of it is correct:
$$sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) = O(sum_{i=0}^n f(i)) qquad (1)$$



The way I interpret the LHS is that $i$ is a function of $n$ and each $f(i)$ becomes essentially a function of n $f(i) = f(i(n))$, so now I am summing a bunch of functions in n and invoke the property:
$$O(f(n)) + O(g(n)) = O(f(n) + g(n))$$
Assuming all functions are positive. This also implies a change of variables; i.e., $O$ on RHS is with respect to $n$. Feels kinda wonky frankly.



Edit:



Here is one transformation from a book that made me think that (1) is a thing (ofc I don't know what their actual reasoning was 'cause they didn't provide any step by step solution):



$$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}(lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil O(i)) = O(nsum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}{iover2^{i+1}}) qquad (2)$$



Assuming I reduce the summation on the LHS to:
$$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}O({niover2^{i+1}})$$



Then I end up with (1)..
As far as I understand, the line of reasoning that produced the LHS of (2) was you loop over $logn$ some levels of a complete binary tree, and on each height $i$ you have max $lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil$ nodes, and on each you invoke a function that runs in $O(i)$.







discrete-mathematics asymptotics






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 26 at 14:57

























asked Nov 26 at 13:27









zagortenay333

1147




1147












  • It seems there is something wrong in that $sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) = O(sum_{i=0}^n f(i))$, in which context have you found that?
    – gimusi
    Nov 26 at 14:20










  • Well, that's the question. Is it wrong?
    – zagortenay333
    Nov 26 at 14:21










  • I'm not sure. In which context did you find that? What $f(1), f(2),...,f(n)$ would represent?
    – gimusi
    Nov 26 at 14:22










  • Well, I'm assuming context-free here. I.e., the those are just positive functions from naturals to reals let's say. I did find in some context where it seems like the bound was found that way. I'll give an example above.
    – zagortenay333
    Nov 26 at 14:25










  • So the functions are functions of the variable h? Maybe the index $n$ should be equal to $i$?
    – gimusi
    Nov 26 at 14:41


















  • It seems there is something wrong in that $sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) = O(sum_{i=0}^n f(i))$, in which context have you found that?
    – gimusi
    Nov 26 at 14:20










  • Well, that's the question. Is it wrong?
    – zagortenay333
    Nov 26 at 14:21










  • I'm not sure. In which context did you find that? What $f(1), f(2),...,f(n)$ would represent?
    – gimusi
    Nov 26 at 14:22










  • Well, I'm assuming context-free here. I.e., the those are just positive functions from naturals to reals let's say. I did find in some context where it seems like the bound was found that way. I'll give an example above.
    – zagortenay333
    Nov 26 at 14:25










  • So the functions are functions of the variable h? Maybe the index $n$ should be equal to $i$?
    – gimusi
    Nov 26 at 14:41
















It seems there is something wrong in that $sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) = O(sum_{i=0}^n f(i))$, in which context have you found that?
– gimusi
Nov 26 at 14:20




It seems there is something wrong in that $sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) = O(sum_{i=0}^n f(i))$, in which context have you found that?
– gimusi
Nov 26 at 14:20












Well, that's the question. Is it wrong?
– zagortenay333
Nov 26 at 14:21




Well, that's the question. Is it wrong?
– zagortenay333
Nov 26 at 14:21












I'm not sure. In which context did you find that? What $f(1), f(2),...,f(n)$ would represent?
– gimusi
Nov 26 at 14:22




I'm not sure. In which context did you find that? What $f(1), f(2),...,f(n)$ would represent?
– gimusi
Nov 26 at 14:22












Well, I'm assuming context-free here. I.e., the those are just positive functions from naturals to reals let's say. I did find in some context where it seems like the bound was found that way. I'll give an example above.
– zagortenay333
Nov 26 at 14:25




Well, I'm assuming context-free here. I.e., the those are just positive functions from naturals to reals let's say. I did find in some context where it seems like the bound was found that way. I'll give an example above.
– zagortenay333
Nov 26 at 14:25












So the functions are functions of the variable h? Maybe the index $n$ should be equal to $i$?
– gimusi
Nov 26 at 14:41




So the functions are functions of the variable h? Maybe the index $n$ should be equal to $i$?
– gimusi
Nov 26 at 14:41










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













In the left-hand side



$$sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)),$$



the arguments of the $O$ terms are constants (they do not depend on $n$) so that the notation $$O(f(i))$$ is essentially meaningless.



E.g. let use take $f(i):= i^2$. Then



$$O(0)+O(1)+O(4)+O(9)+cdots O(n^2)$$ is absurd.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I agree it makes no sense. See the edit I added above that explains how I ended up with the expression on the LHS side.
    – zagortenay333
    Nov 26 at 14:58










  • @zagortenay333: not much better. All the $O(n f(i))$ terms can be replaced by $O(n)$, as multiplicative constants do not matter. This leads you nowhere.
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 26 at 15:22












  • @YvesDaoust: A proper meaning is stated around formula (9.16) in Concrete Mathematics.
    – Markus Scheuer
    Dec 1 at 21:41


















up vote
0
down vote



accepted










Alright, I did some research (should have done before I asked..). The above equality (1) out of context is meaningless. It seems that the convention is that:
$$sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) := sum_{i=0}^n g(i) qquad ,g(x) = O(f(x))$$
Where a all g's have the same constant. Then sometimes the above equality (1) appears to be "true":



$$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil O(i) = sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil g(i) ,g(x) =O(x)$$



Then $forall n > n_0$



$$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil g(i) le sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil ci = {cover2}nsum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{iover2^i}rceil = O(nsum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}{iover2^i})$$



Relevant link: https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/63184/how-does-o-transform-this-sum-like-that?noredirect=1&lq=1






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    0
    down vote














    We assume $f$ is a non-negative function and consider
    begin{align*}
    sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) = Oleft(sum_{i=0}^n f(i)right)qquadqquad ngeq 0tag{1}
    end{align*}



    The left-hand side of (1) has the following meaning:




    • The expression $O(f(i))$ stands for the set of all two-variable functions of the form $g(f(i),n)$ such that there exists a constant $C>0$ with $|g(f(i),n)|leq Cf(i)$ for $0leq ileq n$.


    • The sum of this set of functions, for $0leq ileq n$, is the set of all functions $h(n)$ of the form
      begin{align*}
      h(n)&=sum_{i=0}^ng(f(i),n)\
      &=g(f(0),n)+g(f(1),n)+cdots g(f(n),n)tag{2}
      end{align*}



    We obtain
    begin{align*}
    left|sum_{i=0}^ng(f(i),n)right|&leq left|sum_{i=0}^nCf(i)right|\
    &=Csum_{i=0}^nf(i)
    end{align*}



    It follows all such functions $h(n)$ belong to the right-hand side of (1); therefore (1) is true.




    The meaning of the left-hand side of (1) is stated in section 9.2 $O$ Notation of Concrete Mathematics
    by R.L. Graham, D.E. Knuth and O. Patashnik. A corresponding sum is given as (9.16).




    We are now ready to calculate
    begin{align*}
    sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}left(leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil O(i)right)
    =Oleft(nsum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}frac{i}{2^{i+1}}right)tag{2}
    end{align*}

    We use for convenient calculation $log_2$ as upper limit of the sum.




    • The summand at the left-hand side of (2) stands for the set of all two-variable functions of the form $leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil f(i,n)$ such that there exists a constant $C>0$ with $|f(i,n)|leq Ccdot i$ for $0leq ileq n$.


    • The sum of this set of functions, for $0leq ileq n$, is the set of all functions $g(n)$ of the form
      begin{align*}
      g(n)=sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil f(i,n)tag{3}
      end{align*}



    We obtain
    begin{align*}
    left|sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil f(i,n)right|
    &leq left|sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil Ccdot iright|\
    &= Cleft|sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil iright|\
    &leq 2C nsum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}frac{i}{2^{i+1}}tag{4}
    end{align*}



    It follows all such functions $g(n)$ belong to the right-hand side of (2) and the claim (2) follows.




    Comment: In (4) we use that $frac{n}{2^{i+1}}geq frac{1}{2}$ if $0leq ileqleftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor$, so that we can use a factor $2$ to get an upper bound.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • This is definitely a different definition from the one I showed below. This definition assumes that the functions represented by $sum{O(g(n))}$ are already bounded for all $0le k le n$. This is weird..
      – zagortenay333
      Dec 2 at 10:57












    • Also, shouldn't in (1) $sum{O(f(n))}$ refer to the set of all functions of the form $g(i, n)$, not $g(f(i), n)$?
      – zagortenay333
      Dec 2 at 10:58












    • Also, the definition given by me refers to a single anonymous function, not a set.
      – zagortenay333
      Dec 2 at 11:00











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3014335%2fbig-o-summation-and-additivity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    0
    down vote













    In the left-hand side



    $$sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)),$$



    the arguments of the $O$ terms are constants (they do not depend on $n$) so that the notation $$O(f(i))$$ is essentially meaningless.



    E.g. let use take $f(i):= i^2$. Then



    $$O(0)+O(1)+O(4)+O(9)+cdots O(n^2)$$ is absurd.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • I agree it makes no sense. See the edit I added above that explains how I ended up with the expression on the LHS side.
      – zagortenay333
      Nov 26 at 14:58










    • @zagortenay333: not much better. All the $O(n f(i))$ terms can be replaced by $O(n)$, as multiplicative constants do not matter. This leads you nowhere.
      – Yves Daoust
      Nov 26 at 15:22












    • @YvesDaoust: A proper meaning is stated around formula (9.16) in Concrete Mathematics.
      – Markus Scheuer
      Dec 1 at 21:41















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    In the left-hand side



    $$sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)),$$



    the arguments of the $O$ terms are constants (they do not depend on $n$) so that the notation $$O(f(i))$$ is essentially meaningless.



    E.g. let use take $f(i):= i^2$. Then



    $$O(0)+O(1)+O(4)+O(9)+cdots O(n^2)$$ is absurd.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • I agree it makes no sense. See the edit I added above that explains how I ended up with the expression on the LHS side.
      – zagortenay333
      Nov 26 at 14:58










    • @zagortenay333: not much better. All the $O(n f(i))$ terms can be replaced by $O(n)$, as multiplicative constants do not matter. This leads you nowhere.
      – Yves Daoust
      Nov 26 at 15:22












    • @YvesDaoust: A proper meaning is stated around formula (9.16) in Concrete Mathematics.
      – Markus Scheuer
      Dec 1 at 21:41













    up vote
    0
    down vote










    up vote
    0
    down vote









    In the left-hand side



    $$sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)),$$



    the arguments of the $O$ terms are constants (they do not depend on $n$) so that the notation $$O(f(i))$$ is essentially meaningless.



    E.g. let use take $f(i):= i^2$. Then



    $$O(0)+O(1)+O(4)+O(9)+cdots O(n^2)$$ is absurd.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    In the left-hand side



    $$sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)),$$



    the arguments of the $O$ terms are constants (they do not depend on $n$) so that the notation $$O(f(i))$$ is essentially meaningless.



    E.g. let use take $f(i):= i^2$. Then



    $$O(0)+O(1)+O(4)+O(9)+cdots O(n^2)$$ is absurd.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Nov 26 at 14:45









    Yves Daoust

    123k668219




    123k668219












    • I agree it makes no sense. See the edit I added above that explains how I ended up with the expression on the LHS side.
      – zagortenay333
      Nov 26 at 14:58










    • @zagortenay333: not much better. All the $O(n f(i))$ terms can be replaced by $O(n)$, as multiplicative constants do not matter. This leads you nowhere.
      – Yves Daoust
      Nov 26 at 15:22












    • @YvesDaoust: A proper meaning is stated around formula (9.16) in Concrete Mathematics.
      – Markus Scheuer
      Dec 1 at 21:41


















    • I agree it makes no sense. See the edit I added above that explains how I ended up with the expression on the LHS side.
      – zagortenay333
      Nov 26 at 14:58










    • @zagortenay333: not much better. All the $O(n f(i))$ terms can be replaced by $O(n)$, as multiplicative constants do not matter. This leads you nowhere.
      – Yves Daoust
      Nov 26 at 15:22












    • @YvesDaoust: A proper meaning is stated around formula (9.16) in Concrete Mathematics.
      – Markus Scheuer
      Dec 1 at 21:41
















    I agree it makes no sense. See the edit I added above that explains how I ended up with the expression on the LHS side.
    – zagortenay333
    Nov 26 at 14:58




    I agree it makes no sense. See the edit I added above that explains how I ended up with the expression on the LHS side.
    – zagortenay333
    Nov 26 at 14:58












    @zagortenay333: not much better. All the $O(n f(i))$ terms can be replaced by $O(n)$, as multiplicative constants do not matter. This leads you nowhere.
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 26 at 15:22






    @zagortenay333: not much better. All the $O(n f(i))$ terms can be replaced by $O(n)$, as multiplicative constants do not matter. This leads you nowhere.
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 26 at 15:22














    @YvesDaoust: A proper meaning is stated around formula (9.16) in Concrete Mathematics.
    – Markus Scheuer
    Dec 1 at 21:41




    @YvesDaoust: A proper meaning is stated around formula (9.16) in Concrete Mathematics.
    – Markus Scheuer
    Dec 1 at 21:41










    up vote
    0
    down vote



    accepted










    Alright, I did some research (should have done before I asked..). The above equality (1) out of context is meaningless. It seems that the convention is that:
    $$sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) := sum_{i=0}^n g(i) qquad ,g(x) = O(f(x))$$
    Where a all g's have the same constant. Then sometimes the above equality (1) appears to be "true":



    $$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil O(i) = sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil g(i) ,g(x) =O(x)$$



    Then $forall n > n_0$



    $$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil g(i) le sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil ci = {cover2}nsum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{iover2^i}rceil = O(nsum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}{iover2^i})$$



    Relevant link: https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/63184/how-does-o-transform-this-sum-like-that?noredirect=1&lq=1






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      0
      down vote



      accepted










      Alright, I did some research (should have done before I asked..). The above equality (1) out of context is meaningless. It seems that the convention is that:
      $$sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) := sum_{i=0}^n g(i) qquad ,g(x) = O(f(x))$$
      Where a all g's have the same constant. Then sometimes the above equality (1) appears to be "true":



      $$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil O(i) = sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil g(i) ,g(x) =O(x)$$



      Then $forall n > n_0$



      $$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil g(i) le sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil ci = {cover2}nsum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{iover2^i}rceil = O(nsum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}{iover2^i})$$



      Relevant link: https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/63184/how-does-o-transform-this-sum-like-that?noredirect=1&lq=1






      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        0
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        0
        down vote



        accepted






        Alright, I did some research (should have done before I asked..). The above equality (1) out of context is meaningless. It seems that the convention is that:
        $$sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) := sum_{i=0}^n g(i) qquad ,g(x) = O(f(x))$$
        Where a all g's have the same constant. Then sometimes the above equality (1) appears to be "true":



        $$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil O(i) = sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil g(i) ,g(x) =O(x)$$



        Then $forall n > n_0$



        $$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil g(i) le sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil ci = {cover2}nsum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{iover2^i}rceil = O(nsum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}{iover2^i})$$



        Relevant link: https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/63184/how-does-o-transform-this-sum-like-that?noredirect=1&lq=1






        share|cite|improve this answer












        Alright, I did some research (should have done before I asked..). The above equality (1) out of context is meaningless. It seems that the convention is that:
        $$sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) := sum_{i=0}^n g(i) qquad ,g(x) = O(f(x))$$
        Where a all g's have the same constant. Then sometimes the above equality (1) appears to be "true":



        $$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil O(i) = sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil g(i) ,g(x) =O(x)$$



        Then $forall n > n_0$



        $$sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil g(i) le sum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{nover2^{i+1}}rceil ci = {cover2}nsum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}lceil{iover2^i}rceil = O(nsum_{i=0}^{lfloor{logn}rfloor}{iover2^i})$$



        Relevant link: https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/63184/how-does-o-transform-this-sum-like-that?noredirect=1&lq=1







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 26 at 17:15









        zagortenay333

        1147




        1147






















            up vote
            0
            down vote














            We assume $f$ is a non-negative function and consider
            begin{align*}
            sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) = Oleft(sum_{i=0}^n f(i)right)qquadqquad ngeq 0tag{1}
            end{align*}



            The left-hand side of (1) has the following meaning:




            • The expression $O(f(i))$ stands for the set of all two-variable functions of the form $g(f(i),n)$ such that there exists a constant $C>0$ with $|g(f(i),n)|leq Cf(i)$ for $0leq ileq n$.


            • The sum of this set of functions, for $0leq ileq n$, is the set of all functions $h(n)$ of the form
              begin{align*}
              h(n)&=sum_{i=0}^ng(f(i),n)\
              &=g(f(0),n)+g(f(1),n)+cdots g(f(n),n)tag{2}
              end{align*}



            We obtain
            begin{align*}
            left|sum_{i=0}^ng(f(i),n)right|&leq left|sum_{i=0}^nCf(i)right|\
            &=Csum_{i=0}^nf(i)
            end{align*}



            It follows all such functions $h(n)$ belong to the right-hand side of (1); therefore (1) is true.




            The meaning of the left-hand side of (1) is stated in section 9.2 $O$ Notation of Concrete Mathematics
            by R.L. Graham, D.E. Knuth and O. Patashnik. A corresponding sum is given as (9.16).




            We are now ready to calculate
            begin{align*}
            sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}left(leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil O(i)right)
            =Oleft(nsum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}frac{i}{2^{i+1}}right)tag{2}
            end{align*}

            We use for convenient calculation $log_2$ as upper limit of the sum.




            • The summand at the left-hand side of (2) stands for the set of all two-variable functions of the form $leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil f(i,n)$ such that there exists a constant $C>0$ with $|f(i,n)|leq Ccdot i$ for $0leq ileq n$.


            • The sum of this set of functions, for $0leq ileq n$, is the set of all functions $g(n)$ of the form
              begin{align*}
              g(n)=sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil f(i,n)tag{3}
              end{align*}



            We obtain
            begin{align*}
            left|sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil f(i,n)right|
            &leq left|sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil Ccdot iright|\
            &= Cleft|sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil iright|\
            &leq 2C nsum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}frac{i}{2^{i+1}}tag{4}
            end{align*}



            It follows all such functions $g(n)$ belong to the right-hand side of (2) and the claim (2) follows.




            Comment: In (4) we use that $frac{n}{2^{i+1}}geq frac{1}{2}$ if $0leq ileqleftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor$, so that we can use a factor $2$ to get an upper bound.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • This is definitely a different definition from the one I showed below. This definition assumes that the functions represented by $sum{O(g(n))}$ are already bounded for all $0le k le n$. This is weird..
              – zagortenay333
              Dec 2 at 10:57












            • Also, shouldn't in (1) $sum{O(f(n))}$ refer to the set of all functions of the form $g(i, n)$, not $g(f(i), n)$?
              – zagortenay333
              Dec 2 at 10:58












            • Also, the definition given by me refers to a single anonymous function, not a set.
              – zagortenay333
              Dec 2 at 11:00















            up vote
            0
            down vote














            We assume $f$ is a non-negative function and consider
            begin{align*}
            sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) = Oleft(sum_{i=0}^n f(i)right)qquadqquad ngeq 0tag{1}
            end{align*}



            The left-hand side of (1) has the following meaning:




            • The expression $O(f(i))$ stands for the set of all two-variable functions of the form $g(f(i),n)$ such that there exists a constant $C>0$ with $|g(f(i),n)|leq Cf(i)$ for $0leq ileq n$.


            • The sum of this set of functions, for $0leq ileq n$, is the set of all functions $h(n)$ of the form
              begin{align*}
              h(n)&=sum_{i=0}^ng(f(i),n)\
              &=g(f(0),n)+g(f(1),n)+cdots g(f(n),n)tag{2}
              end{align*}



            We obtain
            begin{align*}
            left|sum_{i=0}^ng(f(i),n)right|&leq left|sum_{i=0}^nCf(i)right|\
            &=Csum_{i=0}^nf(i)
            end{align*}



            It follows all such functions $h(n)$ belong to the right-hand side of (1); therefore (1) is true.




            The meaning of the left-hand side of (1) is stated in section 9.2 $O$ Notation of Concrete Mathematics
            by R.L. Graham, D.E. Knuth and O. Patashnik. A corresponding sum is given as (9.16).




            We are now ready to calculate
            begin{align*}
            sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}left(leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil O(i)right)
            =Oleft(nsum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}frac{i}{2^{i+1}}right)tag{2}
            end{align*}

            We use for convenient calculation $log_2$ as upper limit of the sum.




            • The summand at the left-hand side of (2) stands for the set of all two-variable functions of the form $leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil f(i,n)$ such that there exists a constant $C>0$ with $|f(i,n)|leq Ccdot i$ for $0leq ileq n$.


            • The sum of this set of functions, for $0leq ileq n$, is the set of all functions $g(n)$ of the form
              begin{align*}
              g(n)=sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil f(i,n)tag{3}
              end{align*}



            We obtain
            begin{align*}
            left|sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil f(i,n)right|
            &leq left|sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil Ccdot iright|\
            &= Cleft|sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil iright|\
            &leq 2C nsum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}frac{i}{2^{i+1}}tag{4}
            end{align*}



            It follows all such functions $g(n)$ belong to the right-hand side of (2) and the claim (2) follows.




            Comment: In (4) we use that $frac{n}{2^{i+1}}geq frac{1}{2}$ if $0leq ileqleftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor$, so that we can use a factor $2$ to get an upper bound.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • This is definitely a different definition from the one I showed below. This definition assumes that the functions represented by $sum{O(g(n))}$ are already bounded for all $0le k le n$. This is weird..
              – zagortenay333
              Dec 2 at 10:57












            • Also, shouldn't in (1) $sum{O(f(n))}$ refer to the set of all functions of the form $g(i, n)$, not $g(f(i), n)$?
              – zagortenay333
              Dec 2 at 10:58












            • Also, the definition given by me refers to a single anonymous function, not a set.
              – zagortenay333
              Dec 2 at 11:00













            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote










            We assume $f$ is a non-negative function and consider
            begin{align*}
            sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) = Oleft(sum_{i=0}^n f(i)right)qquadqquad ngeq 0tag{1}
            end{align*}



            The left-hand side of (1) has the following meaning:




            • The expression $O(f(i))$ stands for the set of all two-variable functions of the form $g(f(i),n)$ such that there exists a constant $C>0$ with $|g(f(i),n)|leq Cf(i)$ for $0leq ileq n$.


            • The sum of this set of functions, for $0leq ileq n$, is the set of all functions $h(n)$ of the form
              begin{align*}
              h(n)&=sum_{i=0}^ng(f(i),n)\
              &=g(f(0),n)+g(f(1),n)+cdots g(f(n),n)tag{2}
              end{align*}



            We obtain
            begin{align*}
            left|sum_{i=0}^ng(f(i),n)right|&leq left|sum_{i=0}^nCf(i)right|\
            &=Csum_{i=0}^nf(i)
            end{align*}



            It follows all such functions $h(n)$ belong to the right-hand side of (1); therefore (1) is true.




            The meaning of the left-hand side of (1) is stated in section 9.2 $O$ Notation of Concrete Mathematics
            by R.L. Graham, D.E. Knuth and O. Patashnik. A corresponding sum is given as (9.16).




            We are now ready to calculate
            begin{align*}
            sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}left(leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil O(i)right)
            =Oleft(nsum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}frac{i}{2^{i+1}}right)tag{2}
            end{align*}

            We use for convenient calculation $log_2$ as upper limit of the sum.




            • The summand at the left-hand side of (2) stands for the set of all two-variable functions of the form $leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil f(i,n)$ such that there exists a constant $C>0$ with $|f(i,n)|leq Ccdot i$ for $0leq ileq n$.


            • The sum of this set of functions, for $0leq ileq n$, is the set of all functions $g(n)$ of the form
              begin{align*}
              g(n)=sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil f(i,n)tag{3}
              end{align*}



            We obtain
            begin{align*}
            left|sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil f(i,n)right|
            &leq left|sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil Ccdot iright|\
            &= Cleft|sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil iright|\
            &leq 2C nsum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}frac{i}{2^{i+1}}tag{4}
            end{align*}



            It follows all such functions $g(n)$ belong to the right-hand side of (2) and the claim (2) follows.




            Comment: In (4) we use that $frac{n}{2^{i+1}}geq frac{1}{2}$ if $0leq ileqleftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor$, so that we can use a factor $2$ to get an upper bound.






            share|cite|improve this answer















            We assume $f$ is a non-negative function and consider
            begin{align*}
            sum_{i=0}^n O(f(i)) = Oleft(sum_{i=0}^n f(i)right)qquadqquad ngeq 0tag{1}
            end{align*}



            The left-hand side of (1) has the following meaning:




            • The expression $O(f(i))$ stands for the set of all two-variable functions of the form $g(f(i),n)$ such that there exists a constant $C>0$ with $|g(f(i),n)|leq Cf(i)$ for $0leq ileq n$.


            • The sum of this set of functions, for $0leq ileq n$, is the set of all functions $h(n)$ of the form
              begin{align*}
              h(n)&=sum_{i=0}^ng(f(i),n)\
              &=g(f(0),n)+g(f(1),n)+cdots g(f(n),n)tag{2}
              end{align*}



            We obtain
            begin{align*}
            left|sum_{i=0}^ng(f(i),n)right|&leq left|sum_{i=0}^nCf(i)right|\
            &=Csum_{i=0}^nf(i)
            end{align*}



            It follows all such functions $h(n)$ belong to the right-hand side of (1); therefore (1) is true.




            The meaning of the left-hand side of (1) is stated in section 9.2 $O$ Notation of Concrete Mathematics
            by R.L. Graham, D.E. Knuth and O. Patashnik. A corresponding sum is given as (9.16).




            We are now ready to calculate
            begin{align*}
            sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}left(leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil O(i)right)
            =Oleft(nsum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}frac{i}{2^{i+1}}right)tag{2}
            end{align*}

            We use for convenient calculation $log_2$ as upper limit of the sum.




            • The summand at the left-hand side of (2) stands for the set of all two-variable functions of the form $leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil f(i,n)$ such that there exists a constant $C>0$ with $|f(i,n)|leq Ccdot i$ for $0leq ileq n$.


            • The sum of this set of functions, for $0leq ileq n$, is the set of all functions $g(n)$ of the form
              begin{align*}
              g(n)=sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil f(i,n)tag{3}
              end{align*}



            We obtain
            begin{align*}
            left|sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil f(i,n)right|
            &leq left|sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil Ccdot iright|\
            &= Cleft|sum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}leftlceilfrac{n}{2^{i+1}}rightrceil iright|\
            &leq 2C nsum_{i=0}^{leftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor}frac{i}{2^{i+1}}tag{4}
            end{align*}



            It follows all such functions $g(n)$ belong to the right-hand side of (2) and the claim (2) follows.




            Comment: In (4) we use that $frac{n}{2^{i+1}}geq frac{1}{2}$ if $0leq ileqleftlfloor log_2 nrightrfloor$, so that we can use a factor $2$ to get an upper bound.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Dec 1 at 21:44

























            answered Dec 1 at 21:38









            Markus Scheuer

            59.7k455142




            59.7k455142












            • This is definitely a different definition from the one I showed below. This definition assumes that the functions represented by $sum{O(g(n))}$ are already bounded for all $0le k le n$. This is weird..
              – zagortenay333
              Dec 2 at 10:57












            • Also, shouldn't in (1) $sum{O(f(n))}$ refer to the set of all functions of the form $g(i, n)$, not $g(f(i), n)$?
              – zagortenay333
              Dec 2 at 10:58












            • Also, the definition given by me refers to a single anonymous function, not a set.
              – zagortenay333
              Dec 2 at 11:00


















            • This is definitely a different definition from the one I showed below. This definition assumes that the functions represented by $sum{O(g(n))}$ are already bounded for all $0le k le n$. This is weird..
              – zagortenay333
              Dec 2 at 10:57












            • Also, shouldn't in (1) $sum{O(f(n))}$ refer to the set of all functions of the form $g(i, n)$, not $g(f(i), n)$?
              – zagortenay333
              Dec 2 at 10:58












            • Also, the definition given by me refers to a single anonymous function, not a set.
              – zagortenay333
              Dec 2 at 11:00
















            This is definitely a different definition from the one I showed below. This definition assumes that the functions represented by $sum{O(g(n))}$ are already bounded for all $0le k le n$. This is weird..
            – zagortenay333
            Dec 2 at 10:57






            This is definitely a different definition from the one I showed below. This definition assumes that the functions represented by $sum{O(g(n))}$ are already bounded for all $0le k le n$. This is weird..
            – zagortenay333
            Dec 2 at 10:57














            Also, shouldn't in (1) $sum{O(f(n))}$ refer to the set of all functions of the form $g(i, n)$, not $g(f(i), n)$?
            – zagortenay333
            Dec 2 at 10:58






            Also, shouldn't in (1) $sum{O(f(n))}$ refer to the set of all functions of the form $g(i, n)$, not $g(f(i), n)$?
            – zagortenay333
            Dec 2 at 10:58














            Also, the definition given by me refers to a single anonymous function, not a set.
            – zagortenay333
            Dec 2 at 11:00




            Also, the definition given by me refers to a single anonymous function, not a set.
            – zagortenay333
            Dec 2 at 11:00


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3014335%2fbig-o-summation-and-additivity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Wiesbaden

            Marschland

            Dieringhausen