Big Omg(f1) subs of Big Omg(f2) iff f1 element BigOmg(f2)

  • Thread starter Thread starter zzmanzz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Element
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the relationship between the sets of functions defined by Big Omega notation, specifically addressing the claim that \(\Omega(f_1) \subseteq \Omega(f_2)\) if and only if \(f_1 \in \Omega(f_2)\). The scope includes mathematical reasoning and proof techniques related to asymptotic analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an initial attempt at a proof, defining \(\Omega(f_1)\) and \(\Omega(f_2)\) in terms of inequalities involving constants and functions.
  • Several participants challenge the notation and reasoning, questioning the validity of setting a set of functions equal to a single function and the source of certain inequalities.
  • A participant suggests using proof by contradiction to explore the implications of \(f_1 \notin \Omega(f_2)\) and its relationship to the subset inclusion.
  • Another participant provides a counterexample to illustrate that \(f_1 \notin \Omega(f_2)\) does not necessarily imply a straightforward relationship with the subset inclusion.
  • There is a discussion about the conditions under which the inequalities hold, particularly regarding the behavior of functions as \(n\) approaches infinity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the proof or the implications of the statements made. Multiple competing views and interpretations of the definitions and relationships remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the correct application of Big Omega notation and the implications of various inequalities. There are unresolved issues regarding the definitions and the assumptions underlying the proof attempts.

zzmanzz
Messages
47
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I usually struggle with proofs and would appreciate some help with the following problem:

Prove the following fact:

\Omega(f_1) \subseteq \Omega(f_2) iff f_1 \in \Omega(f_2)

Homework Equations



\Omega(f_1) is the set of functions g s.t.
g(n) \geq c f_1(n) where n_1 \geq n_o

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
1. \Omega(f_1) = g_1 (n_1) \geq c f_1(n_1)
\Omega(f_2) = g_2 (n_1) \geq c f_2(n_2)

2. f_1 \in \Omega(f_2) = f_2(n) \geq c f_1(n)

2. implies that
g_2(n) \geq f_2(n) \geq c f_1(n)

which shows that \Omega(f_1) \subseteq \Omega(f_2) from 1.

Is this on the right track? Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
##\Omega(f_1) = g_1 (n_1) \geq c f_1(n_1)##
You can't set a set of functions equal to a single function.
##g_2(n) \geq f_2(n) \geq c f_1(n)##
Where would the first inequality come from?

Also be careful that you don't reuse "c" for different things.
 
mfb said:
You can't set a set of functions equal to a single function.
Where would the first inequality come from?

Also be careful that you don't reuse "c" for different things.

Thank you for the response. I think I may have made a mistake in the notation so I went back to the textbook to make sure that everything is accurate for this Big Omega which provides an asymptotic lower bound for functions.

1.

\Omega(f_1) = \{ g_1(n) :\exists c_1, \exists n_0 , c_1 > 0, s.t. 0 \leq c_1 f_1 (n_1) \leq g_1 (n_1) \quad n_1 \geq n_0 \} \Omega(f_2) = \{ g_2(n) :\exists c_2, \exists n_0 , c_2 > 0, s.t. 0 \leq c_2 f_2 (n_2) \leq g_2 (n_2) \quad n_2 \geq n_0 \}

2.

f_1 \in \Omega(f_2) = \quad \exists c_3, \exists n_0 , c_3 > 0 \quad f_2(n_3) \leq c_3 f_1(n_3) \quad n_3 \geq n_0

Maybe here I can use a proof by contradiction and state that :

f_1 \notin \Omega(f_2)

implies 3.

\quad \exists c_3, \exists n_0 , c_3 > 0 \quad f_2(n_3) \geq c_3 f_1(n_3) \quad n_3 \geq n_0

but in order to have:

\Omega(f_1) \subseteq \Omega(f_2)

3 can't be true because this fould imply that f_2 is not a lower bound on f_1
 
zzmanzz said:
Maybe here I can use a proof by contradiction and state that :

f_1 \notin \Omega(f_2)

implies 3.

\quad \exists c_3, \exists n_0 , c_3 > 0 \quad f_2(n_3) \geq c_3 f_1(n_3) \quad n_3 \geq n_0
It doesn't imply that. As an example, ##f_1(x)=x^2 |\sin(\pi x/2)| \notin \Omega(x)## but there is no ##c_3, n_0## where ##x \geq c_3 f_1(n_3) \quad \forall n_3 \geq n_0##.

##\notin## needs a bit more thought what it means.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: zzmanzz
Thanks for the example - very helpful.

I think that
f_1 \notin \Omega(f_2)

means that f1 is not in the set of functions asymptotically bounded below by f2and implies

\forall c_1 > 0 ,n_0, \exists n > n_0 \quad c_1 f_2(n) > f_1(n)In this adjustment of the formula, we say that some n exists where this is not true. I think earlier I made the mistake of giving an asymptotic upper bound definition for the contradiction.

For your example:

f_1(x)=x^2 |\sin(\pi x/2)| \notin \Omega(x)

we would have:

c_1 x > x^2 |\sin(\pi x/2)|

which is true whenever the sin part is negative.

However, I think that this contradiction still works for the proof because we just showed that

f_1 \notin \Omega(f_2)
\forall c_1 > 0 ,n_0, \exists n > n_0 \quad c_1 f_2(n) > f_1(n)
can't have
\Omega(f_1) \subseteq \Omega(f_2)
where
f_2(n) > f_1(n)
 
That is good.
zzmanzz said:
which is true whenever the sin part is negative.
The sine part has to be zero (note the absolute value of it - I wanted to avoid negative numbers), but the key point here is the existence of some n where the right side is small.

You'll have to show ##f_1 \in \Omega(f_1)## to complete that direction.
If ##f_1 \notin \Omega(f_2)## and ##f_1 \in \Omega(f_1)## then ##\Omega(f_1)## cannot be a subset of ##\Omega(f_2)##.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
12K