What Are the Big-O Notations for n^(n-1) and (n-1)^n?

  • Thread starter Thread starter peterlam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on determining the big-O notations for the functions n^(n-1) and (n-1)^n. It is established that both functions can be expressed as O(n^n), indicating they grow at a rate that is asymptotically bounded by n^n. However, it is clarified that O(n^(n-1)) does not equal n^(n-1) in a strict sense, as big-O notation represents an upper bound rather than an equality. The conversation emphasizes the need for a tighter asymptotic upper bound but acknowledges the difficulty in finding one that is simpler than n^(n-1) and tighter than n^n. Ultimately, the nuances of big-O notation are highlighted, stressing its role in describing growth rates rather than providing exact function equivalences.
peterlam
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Hi!

For the following functions, what are their big-O notation?

1. n^(n-1)
2. (n-1)^n

Should their big-O notations be the same as the original functions? i.e.

1. O(n^(n-1)) = n^(n-1)?
2. O((n-1)^n) = (n-1)^n?

Please help!
Many thanks!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
If you look at the definition of big-O notation, it is an asymptotic inequality. Roughly speaking, f(x) = O(g(x)) whenever g grows as fast or faster than f.

In this case, g(x) = nn grows faster than both. So it would be both convenient and correct to say that both are O(nn).

Without more context, it is impossible to say whether this is "good enough" for your purposes.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thanks! I can understand that O(n^(n-1)) = n^n. But can I say O(n^(n-1)) = n^(n-1)? I am trying to find a tighter asymptotic upper bound.

Similar to the second case.

Thanks!
 
peterlam said:
Thanks! I can understand that O(n^(n-1)) = n^n. But can I say O(n^(n-1)) = n^(n-1)? I am trying to find a tighter asymptotic upper bound.

I have a quibble with the notation you use above. It is correct to say that nn-1 = O(nn). This is not a real equality. It's just a notation. One might loosely read "=O(g)" as "is of order g". It is incorrect to say that O(nn-1) = nn. The latter notation suggests that O() is a function which returns a single function as its value.

I can't think of any upper bounds that are both simpler than nn-1 and tighter than nn.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top