MHB Master Theorem-Relation of the two functions

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions Master
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on solving the recurrence relation T(n) = 4T(n/3) + n log n using the Master Theorem. The parameters are identified as a = 4, b = 3, and f(n) = n log n, with the calculation of log_b(a) = log_3(4). It is established that n^log_3(4) grows faster than n log n, as polynomials dominate logarithmic functions for large n. The proof using L'Hôpital's rule confirms that the logarithm becomes negligible compared to polynomial growth. This understanding aids in applying the Master Theorem to analyze the recurrence relation effectively.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

I want to solve the recurrence relation

$$T(n)=4T{\left( \frac{n}{3} \right)}+n \log{n}.$$

I thought to use the Master Theorem.

We have $a=4, b=3, f(n)=n \log{n}$.

$\log_b{a}=\log_3{4}$

$n^{\log_b{a}}=n^{\log_3{4}}$

How can we find a relation between $n^{\log_{3}{4}}$ and $n \log{n}$ ? (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey evinda!

A polynomial dominates the logarithm doesn't it? 🤔
More specifically, for any $\varepsilon>0$ we have that $\ln n < n^\varepsilon$ for sufficiently large $n$.
Proof by L'Hôpital's rule:
$$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{\ln n}{n^\varepsilon} = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{\frac 1n}{\varepsilon n^{\varepsilon-1}} = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{\varepsilon n^\varepsilon} = 0$$
🤔
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Hey evinda!

A polynomial dominates the logarithm doesn't it? 🤔
More specifically, for any $\varepsilon>0$ we have that $\ln n < n^\varepsilon$ for sufficiently large $n$.
Proof by L'Hôpital's rule:
$$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{\ln n}{n^\varepsilon} = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{\frac 1n}{\varepsilon n^{\varepsilon-1}} = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{\varepsilon n^\varepsilon} = 0$$
🤔

I see... Thanks a lot! (Blush)
 
Greetings, I am studying probability theory [non-measure theory] from a textbook. I stumbled to the topic stating that Cauchy Distribution has no moments. It was not proved, and I tried working it via direct calculation of the improper integral of E[X^n] for the case n=1. Anyhow, I wanted to generalize this without success. I stumbled upon this thread here: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-to-prove-the-cauchy-distribution-has-no-moments.992416/ I really enjoyed the proof...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K