So I'm assuming everyone's familiar with the definition of Big-O: \begin{align} ∃c \in \mathbb{R^+}, \exists n_0 \in \mathbb{R^+}, \forall n \in N, n \geq n_0 ⇒ g(n) ≤ cf(n) \end{align}

Here is a variation of this: $\text(Little-O)$: \begin{align} \text{Let $f, g : \mathbb{N} → \mathbb{R^{≥0}}$. We say that $g$ is little-oh of $f$, and write $g ∈ o(f)$, when:}\\ \forall c \in \mathbb{R^+}, \exists n_0 \in \mathbb{R^+}, \forall n \in \mathbb{N}, n ≥ n_0 ⇒ g(n) \leq cf(n) \end{align}

As you can see, this is a stronger property than Big-O, in the sense that if $g \in o(f)$, then $g \in \mathcal{O(f)}$. Basically, we switch to universal quantification leading to a more powerful claim. In general, if the statement $\forall c \in \mathbb{R^+}, P(c)$ is true, then $\exists c \in \mathbb{R^+}, P(c)$ is also true. While $g \in \mathcal{O(f)}$ says (colloquially) that “it is possible to scale up $f$ so that it eventually dominates $g$,” $g \in o(f)$ says that “no matter how you scale $f$ (up or down), it will always eventually dominate $g$.” Or, in terms of rates of growth, $g \in \mathcal{O(f)}$ means that $g$ grows at most as quickly as $f$, while $g \in o(f)$ means that $g$ grows strictly slower than $f$. I hope you get my gist.

Can someone please prove the following challenge question for me? It would be much appreciated and I've been at it for a long time now.

Prove the following statements about Little-o:

  1. Prove that for all positive real numbers $a$ and $b$, if $a<b$ then $n^a \in o(n^b)$.
  2. Prove that for all functions $f, g : \mathbb{N} → \mathbb{R^+}$, if $g \in o(f)$ then $f \notin \mathcal{O(g)}$.

I see that in the $2^{nd}$ part they've restricted the range of $f$ and $g$ to exclude $0$ and that we are to use only the definitions of Little-o and Big-o in order to prove both statements.


For positive functions $f,g\colon \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{R}_+$, you can show that

  • $f(n) = o(g(n))$ iff $\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{f(n)}{g(n)} = 0$.
  • $f(n) = O(g(n))$ iff $\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{f(n)}{g(n)} < \infty$.

Using this, it is not hard to prove the two statements. Once you have done that, try translating your proofs to the definitions you were given.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.