Question

Al and Bill are arguing about the performance of their sorting algorithms. Al claims that his O(N log N)-time algorithm is always faster than Bill's O(N2)-time algo- rithm. To settle the issue, they implement and run the two algorithms on many randomly generated data sets. To Al's dismay, they find that if N 〈 1000 the O(N2)- time algorithm actually runs faster, and only when N 〉 1000 the 0(N logN)-time (10 pts.) one is better. Explain why the above scenario is possible

Answer 1

Answer:

See in Explanation

Explanation:

All you know is that an $O(n log n)$ algorithm is eventually (a lot) faster than an $O(n^{2} )$ algorithm, but for any specific value of n, you can't say anything. Indeed, the asymptotic growth of the function doesn't depend on its value on $n$. This means that if  $f(n)=O(n^{2} )$ then for all $c_{1} ,....\ , c_{99}$, the following function is also $O(n^{2} )$:

$f^{'} (n)=[\ cnf(n)\ if \ n$

So asymptotic notation is completely uninformative regarding the performance of algorithms on specific values of n.

You could say that functions such as $f^{'}(n)$ are artificial and never really occur in practice. This is not quite true (you can hard-code some auxiliary information for small n, for example), but even if you consider "natural" functions, asymptotic notation doesn't help you to determine anything other than asymptotic's: consider for example $n^{2}$ against $10^{100}n\ log \ n$ (such examples definitely happen in practice, for example in fast matrix multiplication).