In CLRS (on pages 49-50), what is the meaning of the following statement:

$\Sigma_{i=1}^{n} O(i)$ is only a single anonymous function (of $i$), but is not the same as $O(1)+O(2)+\cdots+O(n)$, which doesn't really have an interpretation."

  • $\begingroup$ I tried to formulate your question more precisely; also note that we have latex support here so you can write nicely formatted math. I encourage you to be more specific: what exactly is confusing? What part is causing trouble? (Maybe you can then edit the title of the question accordingly as well). $\endgroup$ – Juho Jun 9 '14 at 13:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ see also related: cs.stackexchange.com/questions/366/… and cs.stackexchange.com/questions/2814/… $\endgroup$ – Ran G. Jun 11 '14 at 6:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Arguably, the expanded sum does not have an interpretation, either; you should write $O(\sum \dots)$ do begin with. $\endgroup$ – Raphael Jun 11 '14 at 7:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can anyone explain the intended meaning of $\sum_{i=1}^nO(i)$ ? Sum of $n$ functions of order "$i$" ? This makes little sense, as $O(i)=O(1)$. Sum of $n$ functions indexed by $i$ and of some order ?? $\endgroup$ – Yves Daoust Jun 11 '14 at 10:50

Since $1+2+\dots+n =O(n^2)$, it is tempting to suggest that $O(1)+O(2)+\dots+O(n) = O(n^2)$ ... but this is not in fact valid. The reason is that there might a different constant for each term in the sum.

An example

Let me give an example. Consider the sums $S(1) = 1^2$, $S(2) = 1^2 + 2^2$, $S(3) = 1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2$, $S(4) = 1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 + 4^2$, and so on. Note that $1^2 \in O(1)$, $2^2 \in O(2)$, $3^2 \in O(3)$, $4^2 \in O(4)$, and so on for each term in the sum. Therefore, it would be reasonable to write $S(j)=1^2 + \dots + j^2$ in the form $S(j) = O(1) + \dots + O(j)$. So can we conclude that $S(j) = O(j^2)$? Nope. In fact, $S(n) = n(n+1)(2n+1)/6$, so $S(n) = \Theta(n^3)$.

If that doesn't help, let's try the following more precise mathematical development:

A formalization

Recall that the interpretation of, say, $O(n^2)$ is that it is a set of non-negative functions $f(n)$ (namely, the set of functions $f(n)$ such that there exists constants $c \ge 0, d\ge 0$ such that $f(n) \le c \cdot n^2$ for all $n\ge d$).

The closest we can come to an interpretation of $O(1) + O(2) + \dots + O(n)$ is that it is the set of functions of the form $f_1(n) + f_2(n) + \dots + f_n(n)$ such that $f_1(n) \in O(1)$, $f_2(n) \in O(2)$, ..., $f_n(n) \in O(n)$.

But now the constants for each $f_i$ can be different. Thus, each $f_i$ is a non-negative function $f_i$ such that there exist constants $c_i\ge 0,d_i \ge 0$ with $f_i(n) \le c_i \cdot i$ for all $n \ge d_i$.

Now, given this, what can we say about $g(n) = f_1(n) + f_2(n) + \dots + f_n(n)$? Not much useful. We know that there exists a constant $d=\max(d_1,d_2,\dots,d_n)$ such that $g(n) \le c_1 \cdot 1 + c_2 \cdot 2 + \dots + c_n \cdot n$ for all $n\ge d$. Now what can we say about this sum? Well, the answer is that we can't say anything at all. It could be arbitrarily large. It is tempting to let $c=\max(c_1,c_2,\dots,c_n)$ and say that $g(n) \le c \cdot (1+2+\dots+n) \le c \cdot n^2 = O(n^2)$... but this is not actually correct, since we need a single constant value of $c$ that works for all $n$, and the value $\max(c_1,c_2,\dots,c_n)$ is a function of $n$, not a constant.

So there might not be any constant $c$ such that $g(n) \le c \cdot (1+2+\dots+n)$; there might not be any constant $c$ such that $g(n) \le c \cdot n^2$. There is no guarantee that $g(n) \in O(n^2)$.

For more reading

See https://math.stackexchange.com/q/86076/14578 and Sums of Landau terms revisited for other questions that deal with this general issue.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ TLDR: you want them to all be the same $f \in O(\_)$ but they are not, formally. $\endgroup$ – Raphael Jun 11 '14 at 7:30

The reason that CLRS's comment is confusing is that, technically, $\sum_{i=1}^{n} O(i)$ is defined as $O(1) + O(2) + \ldots O(n)$. What is really happening is that CLRS is abusing notation for sake of simplicity:

  • $O(1)$ represents a set of functions. It includes, for example, $f(n)=1$, $f(n)=1/n$, and $f(n)=n^{1/n}$.
  • When you write $O(1) + O(2)$ you're technically adding two sets $O(1)$ and $O(2)$ with a sumset operation. When this is done with more than a constant number of terms, it can lead to unexpected behaviors, as D.W. clearly explains in another answer.

Instead, CLRS would thus like you to interpret $\sum_{i=1}^n O(i)$ as $\sum_{i=1}^n f(i)$ where the generic function $f(i) \in O(i)$. For example, they would write that $\sum_{i=1}^n 3i-5$ is $\sum_{i=1}^n O(i)$, or $O(n^2)$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ This explanation isn't quite right. There's nothing wrong with adding $O(1) + O(2)$. That's well-defined. $O(1)$ is a set of functions, $O(2)$ is a set of functions, and when $S,T$ are sets of functions, $S+T$ is normally understood to be the set of functions $\{f(n)+g(n) : f(n) \in S, g(n) \in T\}$. This is what is commonly intended when we add two big-Oh notations, and everything works out fine as long as you only add two (or a constant number of) big-Oh symbols. Where you get into trouble is when the number of addends is not a constant, as explained in my answer. $\endgroup$ – D.W. Jun 9 '14 at 19:41
  • $\begingroup$ I agree that this is the common definition of set addition and that it is well-defined, although I do not think that it is what is meant in common use. As you say correctly in your answer above, using set addition on more than a constant number of terms leads to problems. $\endgroup$ – Ari Trachtenberg Jun 9 '14 at 19:48
  • $\begingroup$ I prefer to define O(f(n)) as an anonymous element of a certain set of functions, rather than the set itself. Then $\sum_i O(i)$ means "$\sum_i f(i)$ for some function $f$ such that...", while $O(1)+O(2)+\cdots+O(n)$ means "$f_1(1)+f_2(2)+\cdots+f_n(n)$ for some functions $f_1,f_2,\dots,f_n$ such that...". Totally not the same thing. $\endgroup$ – JeffE Jun 11 '14 at 12:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.