MHB Solve Induction Problem: cn <= n log2n

  • Thread starter Thread starter nano1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around solving an induction problem related to the number of comparisons, cn, made by a student studying a list of n elements. The user is challenged to prove that cn is less than or equal to n log2n for n >= 2, given specific initial conditions and a recursive relation. There is acknowledgment that the problem may be complex and requires careful application of mathematical induction. An attachment is mentioned that likely contains a solution or guidance on the induction process. The overall goal is to clarify the induction method to establish the inequality for the number of comparisons.
nano1
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hey I've been given an equality to solve as a bonus question with a strong hint that a like one would appear on my midterm.
However, I am stumped by it, it appears quite complex to me. Any insight into how to solve this would be greatly appreciated!
I'll try to type it as best I can:

A student is studying a list with n elements. The student determines that the number of comparisons c sub n when the list has n elements satisfies the following relation:

c0 = c1 = 0
c2 = 1
c3 <= 3
cn <= (2cn/2) + (n - 1) if n >= 4

Prove that for any n >= 2 the value cn satisfies the equation cn <= n log2n

I think I have to use induction to solve this but the question appears tricky and weirdly worded. Any help would be awesome, thank you !
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,
The attachment answers your question. The induction is just a little tricky. Presumably, this is the number of comparisons in some algorithm for a list of length n.

View attachment 1715
 

Attachments

  • MHBdiscrete2.png
    MHBdiscrete2.png
    10.9 KB · Views: 89
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K