Logarithmic run time for calculating prime numbers?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

Here's the function I'm currently analyzing. I know it's not the most optimal but I'm not understanding the $theta()$ of this algorithm. I've been told that it's not actually $theta(n)$ but instead a logarithmic run-time and it had something to do with the bits of the value passed in. I'm not understanding how the bits are causing the logarithmic so if someone can explain that it'd be great.

 function isPrime(n):
1 if n = 2 return true
2 for i from 2 to n
3 if n % i = 0 return false
4 return true

runtime-analysis primes

share|cite|improve this question

edited 7 hours ago

David Richerby

62.3k1595179

asked 8 hours ago

Justin Li

61

New contributor

Justin Li is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

Here's the function I'm currently analyzing. I know it's not the most optimal but I'm not understanding the $theta()$ of this algorithm. I've been told that it's not actually $theta(n)$ but instead a logarithmic run-time and it had something to do with the bits of the value passed in. I'm not understanding how the bits are causing the logarithmic so if someone can explain that it'd be great.

 function isPrime(n):
1 if n = 2 return true
2 for i from 2 to n
3 if n % i = 0 return false
4 return true

runtime-analysis primes

share|cite|improve this question

edited 7 hours ago

David Richerby

62.3k1595179

asked 8 hours ago

Justin Li

61

New contributor

Justin Li is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

Here's the function I'm currently analyzing. I know it's not the most optimal but I'm not understanding the $theta()$ of this algorithm. I've been told that it's not actually $theta(n)$ but instead a logarithmic run-time and it had something to do with the bits of the value passed in. I'm not understanding how the bits are causing the logarithmic so if someone can explain that it'd be great.

 function isPrime(n):
1 if n = 2 return true
2 for i from 2 to n
3 if n % i = 0 return false
4 return true

runtime-analysis primes

share|cite|improve this question

edited 7 hours ago

David Richerby

62.3k1595179

asked 8 hours ago

Justin Li

61

New contributor

Justin Li is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

Here's the function I'm currently analyzing. I know it's not the most optimal but I'm not understanding the $theta()$ of this algorithm. I've been told that it's not actually $theta(n)$ but instead a logarithmic run-time and it had something to do with the bits of the value passed in. I'm not understanding how the bits are causing the logarithmic so if someone can explain that it'd be great.

 function isPrime(n):
1 if n = 2 return true
2 for i from 2 to n
3 if n % i = 0 return false
4 return true

runtime-analysis primes

runtime-analysis primes

share|cite|improve this question

edited 7 hours ago

David Richerby

62.3k1595179

asked 8 hours ago

Justin Li

61

New contributor

Justin Li is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|cite|improve this question

edited 7 hours ago

David Richerby

62.3k1595179

asked 8 hours ago

Justin Li

61

New contributor

Justin Li is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|cite|improve this question

share|cite|improve this question

edited 7 hours ago

David Richerby

62.3k1595179

edited 7 hours ago

David Richerby

62.3k1595179

edited 7 hours ago

David Richerby

62.3k1595179

62.3k1595179

asked 8 hours ago

Justin Li

61

New contributor

Justin Li is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

asked 8 hours ago

Justin Li

61

asked 8 hours ago

Justin Li

61

61

New contributor

Justin Li is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

New contributor

Justin Li is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

Justin Li is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

up vote
2
down vote

Let's use a different parameter for your input, $m$. The number of instructions that your algorithm executes in the worst case is $O(m)$.

We often measure the running time of algorithms in terms of the length of their input (measured either in bits or in words), often denoted by $n$. The length of your input is $n approx log_2 m$, since this is how long it takes to encode the integer $m$ in binary. Therefore your algorithm actually performs an exponential number of instructions $O(2^n)$.

A different issue is the cost of arithmetic operations, such as the modulo operation on line 3. In most models of computation (and in real life), the cost of such an operation depends on the length of the numbers being operated on. Therefore your algorithm runs in time which is worse than $2^n$ by a polynomial factor $n^O(1)$ (the exact polynomial factor depends on the algorithm you use to perform the division). Such a running time is usually denoted $tildeO(2^n)$.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

Yuval Filmus

183k12171332

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So does O(m) have anything to do with the O(2^n) at all or are they just 2 ways of measuring the algorithm. And how does the encoding work exactly, I didn't think it was necessary to count from 0 all the way to n in binary
  – Justin Li
  3 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  These are two ways to measure the running time. As for the encoding, it’s really an implementation detail.
  – Yuval Filmus
  18 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

Well, first, the algorithm is incorrect: it claims that every integer less than or equal to $2$ is prime, and every integer greater than–$2$ is composite.

• Any $nleq1$ fails the test at line $1$, does zero iterations of the loope at lines $2$–$3$ and returns true at line $4$.


• 
  $n=2$ triggers the return true on line $1$.


• Any $n>2$ fails the test at line $1$. If it is composite, it returns false at line $3$ for its smallest prime factor; if it is prime, then the loop will get as far as $i=n$, at which point the n%i=0 is true, so we return false at line $3$.

So, suppose we correct line $2$ to be for i=2 to n-1 and assume the input is greater than $1$. Then, for any prime input $n>2$, the loop at lines $2$–$3$ will run for each value $2, dots, n-1$, which is $n-2 = Theta(n)$ iterations. So your suspicion that the running time is $Theta(n)$ is correct: this algorithm is not logarithmic.

In general, as Yuval explains, we measure the running time of algorithms in terms of the length of the input as written in binary. Since the number $n$ takes $Theta(log n)$ bits to write down, and the running time of the algorithm is $Theta(n) = Theta(2^textinput length)$, this algorithm would normally be described as having exponential running time.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

David Richerby

62.3k1595179

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "419"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

Justin Li is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f98134%2flogarithmic-run-time-for-calculating-prime-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

up vote
2
down vote

Let's use a different parameter for your input, $m$. The number of instructions that your algorithm executes in the worst case is $O(m)$.

We often measure the running time of algorithms in terms of the length of their input (measured either in bits or in words), often denoted by $n$. The length of your input is $n approx log_2 m$, since this is how long it takes to encode the integer $m$ in binary. Therefore your algorithm actually performs an exponential number of instructions $O(2^n)$.

A different issue is the cost of arithmetic operations, such as the modulo operation on line 3. In most models of computation (and in real life), the cost of such an operation depends on the length of the numbers being operated on. Therefore your algorithm runs in time which is worse than $2^n$ by a polynomial factor $n^O(1)$ (the exact polynomial factor depends on the algorithm you use to perform the division). Such a running time is usually denoted $tildeO(2^n)$.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

Yuval Filmus

183k12171332

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So does O(m) have anything to do with the O(2^n) at all or are they just 2 ways of measuring the algorithm. And how does the encoding work exactly, I didn't think it was necessary to count from 0 all the way to n in binary
  – Justin Li
  3 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  These are two ways to measure the running time. As for the encoding, it’s really an implementation detail.
  – Yuval Filmus
  18 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

Let's use a different parameter for your input, $m$. The number of instructions that your algorithm executes in the worst case is $O(m)$.

We often measure the running time of algorithms in terms of the length of their input (measured either in bits or in words), often denoted by $n$. The length of your input is $n approx log_2 m$, since this is how long it takes to encode the integer $m$ in binary. Therefore your algorithm actually performs an exponential number of instructions $O(2^n)$.

A different issue is the cost of arithmetic operations, such as the modulo operation on line 3. In most models of computation (and in real life), the cost of such an operation depends on the length of the numbers being operated on. Therefore your algorithm runs in time which is worse than $2^n$ by a polynomial factor $n^O(1)$ (the exact polynomial factor depends on the algorithm you use to perform the division). Such a running time is usually denoted $tildeO(2^n)$.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

Yuval Filmus

183k12171332

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So does O(m) have anything to do with the O(2^n) at all or are they just 2 ways of measuring the algorithm. And how does the encoding work exactly, I didn't think it was necessary to count from 0 all the way to n in binary
  – Justin Li
  3 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  These are two ways to measure the running time. As for the encoding, it’s really an implementation detail.
  – Yuval Filmus
  18 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

up vote
2
down vote

Let's use a different parameter for your input, $m$. The number of instructions that your algorithm executes in the worst case is $O(m)$.

We often measure the running time of algorithms in terms of the length of their input (measured either in bits or in words), often denoted by $n$. The length of your input is $n approx log_2 m$, since this is how long it takes to encode the integer $m$ in binary. Therefore your algorithm actually performs an exponential number of instructions $O(2^n)$.

A different issue is the cost of arithmetic operations, such as the modulo operation on line 3. In most models of computation (and in real life), the cost of such an operation depends on the length of the numbers being operated on. Therefore your algorithm runs in time which is worse than $2^n$ by a polynomial factor $n^O(1)$ (the exact polynomial factor depends on the algorithm you use to perform the division). Such a running time is usually denoted $tildeO(2^n)$.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

Yuval Filmus

183k12171332

Let's use a different parameter for your input, $m$. The number of instructions that your algorithm executes in the worst case is $O(m)$.

We often measure the running time of algorithms in terms of the length of their input (measured either in bits or in words), often denoted by $n$. The length of your input is $n approx log_2 m$, since this is how long it takes to encode the integer $m$ in binary. Therefore your algorithm actually performs an exponential number of instructions $O(2^n)$.

A different issue is the cost of arithmetic operations, such as the modulo operation on line 3. In most models of computation (and in real life), the cost of such an operation depends on the length of the numbers being operated on. Therefore your algorithm runs in time which is worse than $2^n$ by a polynomial factor $n^O(1)$ (the exact polynomial factor depends on the algorithm you use to perform the division). Such a running time is usually denoted $tildeO(2^n)$.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

Yuval Filmus

183k12171332

share|cite|improve this answer

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

Yuval Filmus

183k12171332

answered 7 hours ago

Yuval Filmus

183k12171332

answered 7 hours ago

Yuval Filmus

183k12171332

183k12171332

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So does O(m) have anything to do with the O(2^n) at all or are they just 2 ways of measuring the algorithm. And how does the encoding work exactly, I didn't think it was necessary to count from 0 all the way to n in binary
  – Justin Li
  3 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  These are two ways to measure the running time. As for the encoding, it’s really an implementation detail.
  – Yuval Filmus
  18 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So does O(m) have anything to do with the O(2^n) at all or are they just 2 ways of measuring the algorithm. And how does the encoding work exactly, I didn't think it was necessary to count from 0 all the way to n in binary
  – Justin Li
  3 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  These are two ways to measure the running time. As for the encoding, it’s really an implementation detail.
  – Yuval Filmus
  18 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

So does O(m) have anything to do with the O(2^n) at all or are they just 2 ways of measuring the algorithm. And how does the encoding work exactly, I didn't think it was necessary to count from 0 all the way to n in binary
– Justin Li
3 hours ago

So does O(m) have anything to do with the O(2^n) at all or are they just 2 ways of measuring the algorithm. And how does the encoding work exactly, I didn't think it was necessary to count from 0 all the way to n in binary
– Justin Li
3 hours ago

These are two ways to measure the running time. As for the encoding, it’s really an implementation detail.
– Yuval Filmus
18 mins ago

These are two ways to measure the running time. As for the encoding, it’s really an implementation detail.
– Yuval Filmus
18 mins ago

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

Well, first, the algorithm is incorrect: it claims that every integer less than or equal to $2$ is prime, and every integer greater than–$2$ is composite.

• Any $nleq1$ fails the test at line $1$, does zero iterations of the loope at lines $2$–$3$ and returns true at line $4$.


• 
  $n=2$ triggers the return true on line $1$.


• Any $n>2$ fails the test at line $1$. If it is composite, it returns false at line $3$ for its smallest prime factor; if it is prime, then the loop will get as far as $i=n$, at which point the n%i=0 is true, so we return false at line $3$.

So, suppose we correct line $2$ to be for i=2 to n-1 and assume the input is greater than $1$. Then, for any prime input $n>2$, the loop at lines $2$–$3$ will run for each value $2, dots, n-1$, which is $n-2 = Theta(n)$ iterations. So your suspicion that the running time is $Theta(n)$ is correct: this algorithm is not logarithmic.

In general, as Yuval explains, we measure the running time of algorithms in terms of the length of the input as written in binary. Since the number $n$ takes $Theta(log n)$ bits to write down, and the running time of the algorithm is $Theta(n) = Theta(2^textinput length)$, this algorithm would normally be described as having exponential running time.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

David Richerby

62.3k1595179

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

Well, first, the algorithm is incorrect: it claims that every integer less than or equal to $2$ is prime, and every integer greater than–$2$ is composite.

• Any $nleq1$ fails the test at line $1$, does zero iterations of the loope at lines $2$–$3$ and returns true at line $4$.


• 
  $n=2$ triggers the return true on line $1$.


• Any $n>2$ fails the test at line $1$. If it is composite, it returns false at line $3$ for its smallest prime factor; if it is prime, then the loop will get as far as $i=n$, at which point the n%i=0 is true, so we return false at line $3$.

So, suppose we correct line $2$ to be for i=2 to n-1 and assume the input is greater than $1$. Then, for any prime input $n>2$, the loop at lines $2$–$3$ will run for each value $2, dots, n-1$, which is $n-2 = Theta(n)$ iterations. So your suspicion that the running time is $Theta(n)$ is correct: this algorithm is not logarithmic.

In general, as Yuval explains, we measure the running time of algorithms in terms of the length of the input as written in binary. Since the number $n$ takes $Theta(log n)$ bits to write down, and the running time of the algorithm is $Theta(n) = Theta(2^textinput length)$, this algorithm would normally be described as having exponential running time.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

David Richerby

62.3k1595179

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

up vote
1
down vote

Well, first, the algorithm is incorrect: it claims that every integer less than or equal to $2$ is prime, and every integer greater than–$2$ is composite.

• Any $nleq1$ fails the test at line $1$, does zero iterations of the loope at lines $2$–$3$ and returns true at line $4$.


• 
  $n=2$ triggers the return true on line $1$.


• Any $n>2$ fails the test at line $1$. If it is composite, it returns false at line $3$ for its smallest prime factor; if it is prime, then the loop will get as far as $i=n$, at which point the n%i=0 is true, so we return false at line $3$.

So, suppose we correct line $2$ to be for i=2 to n-1 and assume the input is greater than $1$. Then, for any prime input $n>2$, the loop at lines $2$–$3$ will run for each value $2, dots, n-1$, which is $n-2 = Theta(n)$ iterations. So your suspicion that the running time is $Theta(n)$ is correct: this algorithm is not logarithmic.

In general, as Yuval explains, we measure the running time of algorithms in terms of the length of the input as written in binary. Since the number $n$ takes $Theta(log n)$ bits to write down, and the running time of the algorithm is $Theta(n) = Theta(2^textinput length)$, this algorithm would normally be described as having exponential running time.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

David Richerby

62.3k1595179

Well, first, the algorithm is incorrect: it claims that every integer less than or equal to $2$ is prime, and every integer greater than–$2$ is composite.

• Any $nleq1$ fails the test at line $1$, does zero iterations of the loope at lines $2$–$3$ and returns true at line $4$.


• 
  $n=2$ triggers the return true on line $1$.


• Any $n>2$ fails the test at line $1$. If it is composite, it returns false at line $3$ for its smallest prime factor; if it is prime, then the loop will get as far as $i=n$, at which point the n%i=0 is true, so we return false at line $3$.

So, suppose we correct line $2$ to be for i=2 to n-1 and assume the input is greater than $1$. Then, for any prime input $n>2$, the loop at lines $2$–$3$ will run for each value $2, dots, n-1$, which is $n-2 = Theta(n)$ iterations. So your suspicion that the running time is $Theta(n)$ is correct: this algorithm is not logarithmic.

In general, as Yuval explains, we measure the running time of algorithms in terms of the length of the input as written in binary. Since the number $n$ takes $Theta(log n)$ bits to write down, and the running time of the algorithm is $Theta(n) = Theta(2^textinput length)$, this algorithm would normally be described as having exponential running time.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

David Richerby

62.3k1595179

share|cite|improve this answer

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

David Richerby

62.3k1595179

answered 7 hours ago

David Richerby

62.3k1595179

answered 7 hours ago

David Richerby

62.3k1595179

62.3k1595179

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

Justin Li is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Justin Li is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

Justin Li is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

Justin Li is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f98134%2flogarithmic-run-time-for-calculating-prime-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Name Email

Name

Email

Name Email

Name

Email