Proving $f(n)+c=O(g(n))$ with $\lim_{n \to +\infty}f(n)=+\infty$

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of the asymptotic notation in relation to the functions \( f(n) \) and \( g(n) \). Participants are examining whether the conditions \( f(n)=O(g(n)) \) and \( \lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty \) imply that \( f(n)+c=O(g(n)) \) for a constant \( c \), particularly focusing on the case when \( c \) is zero versus when \( c \) is positive.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant attempts to prove that \( f(n)+c=O(g(n)) \) follows from \( f(n)=O(g(n)) \) and \( \lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty \).
  • Another participant argues that the proof may be too strong, suggesting that the conditions do not imply \( f(n)=\Theta(g(n)) \) when \( c=0 \).
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the validity of the proof for all \( c>0 \), questioning whether the implications hold in those cases.
  • There is a reiteration that for \( c=0 \), the conclusion \( f(n)+c=O(g(n)) \) is trivially satisfied.
  • Concerns are raised about the deduction of \( f(n)+c=O(g(n)) \) from \( f(n)+c=\Theta(g(n)) \), indicating a potential misunderstanding of the implications of the definitions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus. There are competing views regarding the implications of the initial conditions, particularly concerning the role of the constant \( c \) and whether the proof holds universally.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight that the discussion is contingent on the definitions of asymptotic notation and the behavior of \( g(n) \) as \( n \) approaches infinity, which may not be fully resolved in the current exchanges.

evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hi! (Smile)

I want to show that $f(n)=O(g(n))$ and $\lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty$ implies that $f(n)+c=O(g(n))$.

$f(n)=O(g(n))$ means that $\exists c_1>0, n_1 \in \mathbb{N}_0$ such that $\forall n \geq n_1$: $f(n) \leq c_1g(n)$.

$\lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty$ means that $\forall M>0 \exists n_2 \in \mathbb{N}_0$ such that $\forall n \geq n_2$: $f(n)>M$.

We want to show that $\exists c_2>0, n_0 \in \mathbb{N}_0$ such that $\forall n \geq n_0$: $f(n)+c<c_2 g(n)$

That's what I have tried:$$M<f(n) \leq c_1 g(n) \Rightarrow M+c < f(n)+c \leq c_1g(n)+c \Rightarrow \frac{M+c}{g(n)} < \frac{f(n)+c}{g(n)} \leq \frac{ c_1g(n)+c}{g(n)} \Rightarrow \lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{M+c}{g(n)}< \lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{f(n)+c}{g(n)} \leq \lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{ c_1g(n)+c}{g(n)} \overset{\star}{\Rightarrow} 0<\lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{f(n)+c}{g(n)} \leq c_1 \\ \Rightarrow \lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{f(n)+c}{g(n)}=a \in (0,c_1] \Rightarrow f(n)+c=\Theta(g(n)) \Rightarrow f(n)+c=O(g(n)) $$$$ \star: f(n) \leq c_1 g(n) \wedge \lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty \Rightarrow \lim_{n \to +\infty} c_1 g(n)=+\infty \Rightarrow \lim_{n \to +\infty}g(n)=+\infty $$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you proved too much. Take $c=0$. The fact that $f(n)=O(g(n))$ and $\lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty$ does not imply that $f(n)=\Theta(g(n))$.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
I think you proved too much. Take $c=0$. The fact that $f(n)=O(g(n))$ and $\lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty$ does not imply that $f(n)=\Theta(g(n))$.

I see (Nod) But it holds for all $c>0$.. Or am I wrong? (Thinking)
 
evinda said:
I see (Nod) But it holds for all $c>0$.
What do you see and what holds for all $c>0$?
 
For $c=0$ we don't have to show anything since $f(n)=O(g(n))$ and $\lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty$ trivially implies that $f(n)+c=O(g(n))$.

For $c>0$ that what I wrote holds, or not? (Thinking)
 
evinda said:
For $c=0$ we don't have to show anything since $f(n)=O(g(n))$ and $\lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty$ trivially implies that $f(n)+c=O(g(n))$.
Slowly exhales. Let's try this again.

Evgeny.Makarov said:
The fact that $f(n)=O(g(n))$ and $\lim_{n \to +\infty} f(n)=+\infty$ does not imply that $f(n)=\Theta(g(n))$.
I said this because you deduced $f(n)+c=O(g(n))$ from $f(n)+c=\Theta(g(n))$.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K