|
|
|
@ -3,11 +3,11 @@ know what the fibonacci sequence is and how to calculate it. |
|
|
|
For those who don't know: [Fibonacci](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci) |
|
|
|
is a sequence of numbers starting with 0,1 whose next number is the sum |
|
|
|
of the two previous numbers. After having multiple of my CS classes |
|
|
|
gave lectures and multiple homework on the Fibonacci sequence; I decided |
|
|
|
that it would be a great idea to write a blog post going over |
|
|
|
give lectures and homeworks on the Fibonacci sequence; I decided |
|
|
|
to write a blog post going over |
|
|
|
the 4 main ways of calculating the nth term of the Fibonacci sequence. |
|
|
|
In addition to providing python code for calculating the nth perm of the sequence, a proof for their validity |
|
|
|
and analysis of their time complexities both mathematically and empirically will |
|
|
|
In addition to providing the python code for calculating the nth perm of the sequence, a proof for their validity |
|
|
|
and an analysis of their time complexities both mathematically and empirically will |
|
|
|
be examined. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Slow Recursive Definition |
|
|
|
@ -25,28 +25,26 @@ def fib(n): |
|
|
|
##Time Complexity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Observing that each call has two recursive calls we can place an upper bound on this |
|
|
|
function as $O(2^n)$. However, if we solve this recurrence we can compute the exact value |
|
|
|
and place a tight bound for time complexity. |
|
|
|
function as $O(2^n)$. However, if we solve this recurrence we can place a tight bound for time complexity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We can write a recurrence for the number of times fib is called: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$$ |
|
|
|
F(0) = 0\\ |
|
|
|
F(1) = 1\\ |
|
|
|
F(n) = F(n-1) + F(n-2)\\ |
|
|
|
$$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Next we replace each instance of F(n) with $a^n$ since we want to solve for the roots since that |
|
|
|
will allow us to put a tight asymptotic limit on the growth. |
|
|
|
Next, we replace F(n) with $a^n$ since we want to find rate of exponential growth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$$ |
|
|
|
a^n = a^{n-1} + a^{n-2}\\ |
|
|
|
\frac{a^n}{a^{n-2}} = \frac{a^{n-1} + a^{n-2}}{a^{n-2}}\\ |
|
|
|
a^2 = a + 1\\ |
|
|
|
a = \frac{1 + sqrt(5)}{2}\\ |
|
|
|
a = \frac{1 \pm sqrt(5)}{2}\\ |
|
|
|
$$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From this calculation we can conclude that F(n) $\in \Theta 1.681^n$ |
|
|
|
From this calculation we can conclude that F(n) $\in \Theta 1.681^n$. We don't have to worry about |
|
|
|
the negative root since it would not be asymptotically relevant by the definition of $\Theta$. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -57,14 +55,13 @@ Here is a graph of the actual performance that I observed from this recursive de |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Accumulation Solution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with the previous recursive solution is that you had to recalculate certain |
|
|
|
terms of fibonacci a ton of times. A summation variable would help us avoid this problem. |
|
|
|
You could write this using a simple loop, however, it is still possible to do this with |
|
|
|
recursion. |
|
|
|
You could write this solution using a simple loop or dynamic programming |
|
|
|
, however, I chose to use recursion to demonstrate that it's recursion which made the first |
|
|
|
problem slow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```Python |
|
|
|
@ -80,9 +77,11 @@ def fibIterative(n): |
|
|
|
return fibHelper(n, 0, 1) |
|
|
|
``` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this code example fibHelper is a method which accumulates the previous two terms. |
|
|
|
In this code example, fibHelper is a method which accumulates the previous two terms. |
|
|
|
The fibIterative is a wrapper method which sets the two initial terms equal to 0 and 1 |
|
|
|
representing the fibonacci sequence. |
|
|
|
representing the fibonacci sequence. At first it may not be obvious that fibIterative(n) |
|
|
|
is equivalent to fib(n). To demonstrate that these two are in fact equivalent, I broke this |
|
|
|
into two inductive proofs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Proof for Fib Helper |
|
|
|
**Lemma:** For any n $\epsilon$ N if n $>$ 1 then |
|
|
|
@ -90,7 +89,7 @@ representing the fibonacci sequence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Proof via Induction** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base Case: n = 2: |
|
|
|
**Base Case**: n = 2: |
|
|
|
$$ |
|
|
|
LHS = fibHelper(2, a, b)\\ |
|
|
|
= fibHelper(1, b, a + b) = a + b\\ |
|
|
|
@ -98,7 +97,7 @@ $$ |
|
|
|
= a + b\\ |
|
|
|
$$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inductive Step: |
|
|
|
**Inductive Step:** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assume proposition is true for all n and show n+1 follows. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -118,19 +117,19 @@ $\Box$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Proof via Strong Induction** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base Case: n = 0: |
|
|
|
**Base Case**: n = 0: |
|
|
|
$$ |
|
|
|
fibIterative(0, 0, 0) = 0\\ |
|
|
|
= fib(0) |
|
|
|
$$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base Case: n = 1: |
|
|
|
**Base Case**: n = 1: |
|
|
|
$$ |
|
|
|
fibIterative(1, 0, 0) = 1\\ |
|
|
|
= fib(1) |
|
|
|
$$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inductive Step: |
|
|
|
**Inductive Step:** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assume proposition is true for all n and show n+1 follows. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -145,9 +144,9 @@ $\Box$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Time Complexity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose that we wish to solve for time complexity in terms of the number of additions needed to be |
|
|
|
computed. By observing the algorithm for fibHelper we can see that we perform one addition every time |
|
|
|
which we have a recursive call. We can now form a recurrence for time complexity and solve for it. |
|
|
|
Suppose that we wish to solve for the time complexity in terms of the number of additions needed to be |
|
|
|
computed. Based on fibHelper we can see that it performs one addition every recursive call. |
|
|
|
We can now form a recurrence for time complexity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$$ |
|
|
|
T(0) = 0\\ |
|
|
|
@ -169,8 +168,8 @@ Fibonacci. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Matrix Solution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We can actually get better than linear time for performance while calculating |
|
|
|
the Fibonacci sequence recursively using this fact: |
|
|
|
We can actually get better than linear for performance for Fibonacci while still using |
|
|
|
recursion. However, to do so we need to know this fact: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$$ |
|
|
|
\begin{bmatrix} |
|
|
|
@ -183,10 +182,11 @@ F_n & F{n-1} |
|
|
|
\end{bmatrix}^n |
|
|
|
$$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without any other tricks, raising a matrix to a power n times would not get |
|
|
|
Without any tricks, raising a matrix to a power n times would not get |
|
|
|
us better than linear performance. However, if we use the [Exponentiation by Squaring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation_by_squaring) |
|
|
|
method, we can expect to see logarithmic time. Since two spots in the matrix are always equal, |
|
|
|
I represented the matrix as an array with only three elements. |
|
|
|
I represented the matrix as an array with only three elements to reduce the space and |
|
|
|
computations required. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```Python |
|
|
|
@ -216,9 +216,9 @@ def fibPower(n): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Time Complexity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For this algorythem lets solve for the time complexity as the number of additions and multiplications. |
|
|
|
For this algorithm, lets solve for the time complexity as the number of additions and multiplications required. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since we are always multiplying two 2x2 matrices, that is constant time. |
|
|
|
Since we are always multiplying two 2x2 matrices, that operation is constant time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$$ |
|
|
|
T_{multiply} = 9 |
|
|
|
@ -246,11 +246,14 @@ $$ |
|
|
|
T_{fibPower}(n) = T_{power}(n)\\ |
|
|
|
$$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now we can state that $fibPower(n) \in \Theta(log(n))$. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Inductive Proof for Matrix Method |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to now prove that this matrix identity is valid since it is not at first obvious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Lemma:** For any n $\epsilon$ N if n $>$ 0 then |
|
|
|
$$ |
|
|
|
\begin{bmatrix} |
|
|
|
@ -314,20 +317,20 @@ $\Box$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As expected by our mathmatical calcuations, the algorthem appears to be running in |
|
|
|
As expected by our mathematical calculations, the algorithm appears to be running in |
|
|
|
logarithmic time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Measured Performance With Large Numbers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When calculating the fibonacci term for extremely large numbers dispite having a polynomial |
|
|
|
time complexity, the space required to compute Fibonacci grows exponentially. Since our |
|
|
|
When calculating the fibonacci term for extremely large numbers despite having a polynomial |
|
|
|
time complexity, the space required to compute each Fibonacci term grows exponentially. Since our |
|
|
|
performance is only pseudo-polynomial we see a degrade in our performance when calculating |
|
|
|
large terms of the fibonacci sequence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The one amazing thing to point out here is that despite calculating the 10,000 term of Fibonacci, |
|
|
|
this algorithm is nearly 400 times faster than the recursive algorithm when it was calculating |
|
|
|
this algorithm is nearly 400 times faster than the recursive algorithm when calculating |
|
|
|
the 30th term of Fibonacci. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -346,10 +349,10 @@ def fibClosedFormula(n): |
|
|
|
return (p-v)/math.sqrt(5) |
|
|
|
``` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Derivation of Formula |
|
|
|
## Derivation of Binet's Formula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar to when we were calculating for the time complexity, we want to start by finding the |
|
|
|
two roots of the equation. |
|
|
|
Similar to when we were calculating the time complexity of the basic recursive definition |
|
|
|
, we want to start by finding the two roots of the equation in terms of exponents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$$ |
|
|
|
a^n = a^{n-1} + a^{n-2}\\ |
|
|
|
@ -385,7 +388,6 @@ $$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Time Complexity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since we managed to find the closed form of the fibonacci sequence we can expect to see constant performance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Measured Performance |
|
|
|
|
jrtechs
6 years ago