I know it can be solved with master method but how ? please help ?
i am not sure if this is correct:
a = sqrt(2)
b = 2
f(n) = log n
log(b) a = log (2) sqrt(2) = 1/2
log n in O[n^(1/2)]
so the runtime of finding the logarithm of a number n is in O{n^(1/2)} (however the Master Theorem can not be applied here)
The solution is in following threads:Solving master theorem with log n: T(n) = 2T(n/4) + log n
Overall, we see that your recurrence is O(n1/2) and Ω(n1/2) by upper- and lower-bounding your recurrence by larger and smaller recurrences. Therefore, even though the Master Theorem doesn't apply here, you can still use the Master Theorem to claim that the runtime will be Θ(n1/2).
Master's theorem with f(n)=log n
Usually, f(n) must be polynomial for the master theorem to apply - it doesn't apply for all functions. However, there is a limited "fourth case" for the master theorem, which allows it to apply to polylogarithmic functions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation
Ralf is not correct by telling you that you can't apply masters theorem.
The only constrains here is that a >=1 and b >= 1, a, b can be irrational and f(n) can be anything.
Log2(sqrt(2)) is 1/2, which puts you in the first case and your solution is O(n^0.5).
Related
I'm trying to find a way to encode a sort of basic subgraph isomorphism in Z3 (preferably z3py). While I know there are papers on this in the abstract, finding any mechanism to do it has eluded me even for very trivial cases, because I'm very new to Z3 in general!
Suppose you have just about the most basic subgraph with nodes (0,1,2) and edges (0,1) with node 2 off on its own, and the supergraph has nodes (0,1,2) and edges (1,2) with node 0 off on its own. You could map the nodes of the subgraph into the supergraph with
0->1,
1->2,
2->0
...as one possible mapping that would satisfy "if these two nodes are connected in the subgraph, their mapped nodes are connected in the supergraph"
So okay :) I tried
from networkx import Graph
from networkx.linalg.graphmatrix import adjacency_matrix
subgraph = Graph()
subgraph.add_nodes_from([0,1,2])
subgraph.add_edges_from([(0,1)])
supergraph = Graph()
supergraph.add_nodes_from([0,1,2])
supergraph.add_edges_from([(1,2)])
s = Solver()
assignments = [Int(f'n{node}') for node in subgraph.nodes]
# each bit assignment in the subgraph belongs to one in the supergraph
assignment_constraint = [ And(assignments[i] >= 0, assignments[i] <= max(supergraph.nodes)) for i in subgraph.nodes ]
# subgraph bits can't be assigned to the same supergraph bits
assignment_distinct = [ Distinct([assignments[i] for i in subgraph.nodes])]
which just gets me as far as "each assignment from subgraph to supergraph should map a node in the subgraph to some node in the supergraph and no two subgraph nodes can be assigned to the same supergraph node"
...but then I get stuck because I keep thinking along the lines of
for edge in subgraph.edges:
s.add( (assignments[edge[0]], assignments[edge[1]]) in supergraph.edges )
...but of course that doesn't work because pythonically those aren't the right sort of keys so that's always false or broken.
So how does one approach that? I can add constraints like "this_var == 1" but get very confused on things like checking membership, ie
>>> assignments[0] == 1.0
n0 == 1 # so that's OK then
>>> assignments[0] in [1.0, 2.0, 3.0]
False # woops, that fails horribly
and I feel like I'm missing a very basic "frame of mind" thing here.
It is relatively straightforward to encode subgraph isomorphism in z3, pretty much along the lines of how you described. However, this encoding is unlikely to scale to large graphs. As you no doubt know, subgraph isomorphism is NP-complete in general, and this encoding will cause z3 to simply enumerate all possibilities and thus will blow up exponentially.
Having said that, here's a straightforward encoding:
from z3 import *
# Subgraph, number of nodes and edges.
# Nodes will be named implicitly from 0 to noOfNodesA - 1
noOfNodesA = 3
edgesA = [(0, 1)]
# Supergraph:
noOfNodesB = 3
edgesB = [(1, 2)]
# Mapping of subgraph nodes to supergraph nodes:
mapping = Array('Map', IntSort(), IntSort())
s = Solver()
# Check that elt is between low and high, inclusive
def InRange(elt, low, high):
return And(low <= elt, elt <= high)
# Check that (x, y) is in the list
def Contains(x, y, lst):
return Or([And(x == x1, y == y1) for x1, y1 in lst])
# Make sure mapping is into the supergraph
s.add(And([InRange(Select(mapping, n1), 0, noOfNodesB-1) for n1 in range(noOfNodesA)]))
# Make sure we map nodes to distinct nodes
s.add(Distinct([Select(mapping, n1) for n1 in range(noOfNodesA)]))
# Make sure edges are preserved:
for x, y in edgesA:
s.add(Contains(Select(mapping, x), Select(mapping, y), edgesB))
# Solve:
r = s.check()
if r == sat:
m = s.model()
for x in range(noOfNodesA):
print ("%s -> %s" % (x, m.evaluate(Select(mapping, x))))
else:
print ("Solver said: %s" % r)
I've added comments along the way, so hopefully you should be able to read the code through; feel free to ask specific questions.
When I run this, I get:
$ python a.py
0 -> 1
1 -> 2
2 -> 0
which finds exactly the mapping you alluded to in your question.
Best of luck!
Given input signal x (e.g. a voltage, sampled thousand times per second couple of minutes long), I'd like to calculate e.g.
/ this is not q
y[3] = -3*x[0] - x[1] + x[2] + 3*x[3]
y[4] = -3*x[1] - x[2] + x[3] + 3*x[4]
. . .
I'm aiming for variable window length and weight coefficients. How can I do it in q? I'm aware of mavg and signal processing in q and moving sum qidiom
In the DSP world it's called applying filter kernel by doing convolution. Weight coefficients define the kernel, which makes a high- or low-pass filter. The example above calculates the slope from last four points, placing the straight line via least squares method.
Something like this would work for parameterisable coefficients:
q)x:10+sums -1+1000?2f
q)f:{sum x*til[count x]xprev\:y}
q)f[3 1 -1 -3] x
0n 0n 0n -2.385585 1.423811 2.771659 2.065391 -0.951051 -1.323334 -0.8614857 ..
Specific cases can be made a bit faster (running 0 xprev is not the best thing)
q)g:{prev[deltas x]+3*x-3 xprev x}
q)g[x]~f[3 1 -1 -3]x
1b
q)\t:100000 f[3 1 1 -3] x
4612
q)\t:100000 g x
1791
There's a kx white paper of signal processing in q if this area interests you: https://code.kx.com/q/wp/signal-processing/
This may be a bit old but I thought I'd weigh in. There is a paper I wrote last year on signal processing that may be of some value. Working purely within KDB, dependent on the signal sizes you are using, you will see much better performance with a FFT based convolution between the kernel/window and the signal.
However, I've only written up a simple radix-2 FFT, although in my github repo I do have the untested work for a more flexible Bluestein algorithm which will allow for more variable signal length. https://github.com/callumjbiggs/q-signals/blob/master/signal.q
If you wish to go down the path of performing a full manual convolution by a moving sum, then the best method would be to break it up into blocks equal to the kernel/window size (which was based on some work Arthur W did many years ago)
q)vec:10000?100.0
q)weights:30?1.0
q)wsize:count weights
q)(weights$(((wsize-1)#0.0),vec)til[wsize]+) each til count v
32.5931 75.54583 100.4159 124.0514 105.3138 117.532 179.2236 200.5387 232.168.
If your input list not big then you could use the technique mentioned here:
https://code.kx.com/q/cookbook/programming-idioms/#how-do-i-apply-a-function-to-a-sequence-sliding-window
That uses 'scan' adverb. As that process creates multiple lists which might be inefficient for big lists.
Other solution using scan is:
q)f:{sum y*next\[z;x]} / x-input list, y-weights, z-window size-1
q)f[x;-3 -1 1 3;3]
This function also creates multiple lists so again might not be very efficient for big lists.
Other option is to use indices to fetch target items from the input list and perform the calculation. This will operate only on input list.
q) f:{[l;w;i]sum w*l i+til 4} / w- weight, l- input list, i-current index
q) f[x;-3 -1 1 3]#'til count x
This is a very basic function. You can add more variables to it as per your requirements.
T(n) = 4T(n/4) + n^2 (if n=1, T(1)=c for some positive constant)
I asked MathStackExchange but no one answered.
What I want to ask is the answer to solving by master theorem and recursion tree about the same problem.
The conclusion is below sentences.
Master theorem = theta(n^2)
Recursion tree = theta(n^2 log_4 n)
How to solve and what is the answer?
In the first level we have O(n^2) time-complexity. For the second level we have 4 times O(n/4). For the next level 4*4 times O(n/(4*4)) and so on.
So we have
PS:
The last part is a geometric series with a=1 and q = 1/4 summed upto m which m is equal to log_4(n).
Depth of recursion tree can calculate from n/4^i = c formula. So h = log_4(n).
Let's assume a very simple constraint: solve(x > 0 && x < 5).
Can Z3 (or any other SMT solver, or any other automatic technique)
compute the minimum and maximum values of (integer) variable x that satisfies the given constraints?
In our case, the minimum is 1 and the maximum is 4.
Z3 has not support for optimizing (maximizing/minimizing) objective functions or variables.
We plan to add this kind of capability, but it will not happen this year.
In the current version, we can "optimize" an objective function by solving several problems where in each iteration we add additional constraints. We know we found the optimal when the problem becomes unsatisfiable. Here is a small Python script that illustrates the idea. The script maximizes the value of a variable X. For minimization, we just have to replace s.add(X > last_model[X]) with s.add(X < last_model[X]). This script is very naive, it performs a "linear search". It can be improved in many ways, but it demonstrates the basic idea.
You can also try the script online at: http://rise4fun.com/Z3Py/KI1
See the following related question: Determine upper/lower bound for variables in an arbitrary propositional formula
from z3 import *
# Given formula F, find the model the maximizes the value of X
# using at-most M iterations.
def max(F, X, M):
s = Solver()
s.add(F)
last_model = None
i = 0
while True:
r = s.check()
if r == unsat:
if last_model != None:
return last_model
else:
return unsat
if r == unknown:
raise Z3Exception("failed")
last_model = s.model()
s.add(X > last_model[X])
i = i + 1
if (i > M):
raise Z3Exception("maximum not found, maximum number of iterations was reached")
x, y = Ints('x y')
F = [x > 0, x < 10, x == 2*y]
print max(F, x, 10000)
As Leonardo pointed out, this was discussed in detail before: Determine upper/lower bound for variables in an arbitrary propositional formula. Also see: How to optimize a piece of code in Z3? (PI_NON_NESTED_ARITH_WEIGHT related).
To summarize, one can either use a quantified formula, or go iteratively. Unfortunately, these techniques are not equivalent:
Quantified approach needs no iteration, and can find global min/max in a single call to the solver; at least in theory. However, it does give rise to harder formulas. So, the backend solver can time-out, or simply return "unknown".
Iterative approach creates simple formulas for the backend solver to deal with, but it can loop forever if there's no optimal value; simplest example being trying to find the largest Int value. Quantified version can solve this problem nicely by quickly telling you that there is no such value, while the iterative version would go on indefinitely. This can be a problem if you don't know ahead of time that your constraints do have an optimal solution. (Needless to say, the "sufficient" iteration count is typically hard to guess, and might depend on random factors, like the seed used by the solver.)
Also keep in mind that if there is a custom optimization algorithm for the problem domain at hand, it's unlikely that a general purpose SMT solver can outperform it.
z3 now supports optimization.
from z3 import *
o = Optimize()
x = Int( 'x' )
o.add(And(x > 0, x < 5))
o.maximize(x)
print(o.check()) # prints sat
print(o.model()) # prints [x = 4]
This particular problem is an integer program.
This is a homework question, exactly as follows:
The heuristic path algorithm (Pohl, 1977) is a best-first search in which the evaluation function is f(n) = (2-w)g(n) + wh(n).
For what values of w is this complete?
Here's what I know:
w = 0: f(n)=2g(n) --> Uniform Cost Search, which is complete.
w = 1: f(n)=g(n) + h(n) --> A*, which is complete.
w = 2: f(n)=2h(n) --> greedy Best First Search, which is not complete.
What about all other values of w?
Please don't just give the answer, help me get to the solution.
Interesting thing about "all other values of w" for w>2: They all have the form f(n) = h(n) - g(n) with some constants in front of h and g. What impact, if any, does subtracting the cost have on completeness? Seems you should be able to generalize from there.