Bound for a function

Please support our Computer Science advertiser: Learn about neural networks and artificial intelligence.
Reply

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11
Reputation: arcticM is an unknown quantity at this point 
Solved Threads: 0
arcticM arcticM is offline Offline
Newbie Poster

Bound for a function

 
-1
  #1
27 Days Ago
Hey everybody!
Really need some help cause I'm lost!
I need to find an asymptotically tight bound for this sum
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/1606/32830911.jpg
, and I know u can't bound a sum, so I can't figure out a way to do it!! I'd REALLY appreciate if someone could explain to me (in the most simple way possible) what I need to do in a situation where I have a sum to bound)
THANK YOU!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message  
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,047
Reputation: Rashakil Fol is just really nice Rashakil Fol is just really nice Rashakil Fol is just really nice Rashakil Fol is just really nice 
Solved Threads: 139
Team Colleague
Rashakil Fol's Avatar
Rashakil Fol Rashakil Fol is offline Offline
Super Senior Demiposter
 
3
  #2
27 Days Ago
Originally Posted by arcticM View Post
and I know u can't bound a sum
Um, yes you can. For example, you can make a very rough bound: if you have a sum of j values that are each less than or equal to k, then their sum is less than or equal to j*k. You might be able to get a tighter bound, though -- going by the reasoning I just gave, you would say that 1+2+4+8+...+2^n <= (n+1)*2^n, which is more general than necessary -- a tighter bound would be 2*2^n. The sum actually equals 2*2^n - 1.

So you can, with very simple reasoning, find an upper bound for a sum -- but it might not be a tight upper bound -- it will give an asymptotic bound that is between O(1) and O(n) times the tightest possible.

To find a lower bound, you can use the same reasoning in the opposite direction: if you have a sum of j values that are each greater than or equal to l, then their sum is greater than or equal to j*l. So by that reasoning, you could say that 1+2+4+8+...+2^n >= n+1. That's pretty useless.

You can actually create a tighter lower bound (restricting yourself to dumb reasoning) by dropping the smaller elements from the sum. Let's drop half the elements from the sum: 2^(n/2) + 2^(n/2+1) + ... + 2^n >= ((n+1)/2)*2^(n/2). We get a tighter lower bound -- but not as tight as possible.

Try doing this reasoning to get upper and lower bounds for the problem you're given.
All my posts may be redistributed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message  
Reply

Message:



Similar Threads
Other Threads in the Computer Science Forum
Thread Tools Search this Thread



About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | DaniWeb | Acceptable Use Policy | RSS Feed

©2003 - 2009 DaniWeb® LLC