Which algorithm is better?

Question

I have two algorithms.

The complexity of the first one is somewhere between Ω(n^2*(logn)^2) and O(n^3).

The complexity of the second is ω(n*log(logn)).

I know that O(n^3) tells me that it can't be worse than n^3, but I don't know the difference between Ω and ω. Can someone please explain?

Answer 1

Big omega (Ω) lower bound:

A function f is an element of the set Ω(g) (which is often written as f(n) = Ω(g(n))) if and only if there exists c > 0, and there exists n0 > 0 (probably depending on the c), such that for every n >= n0 the following inequality is true:

f(n) >= c * g(n)

Little omega (ω) lower bound:

A function f is an element of the set ω(g) (which is often written as f(n) = ω(g(n))) if and only for each c > 0 we can find n0 > 0 (depending on the c), such that for every n >= n0 the following inequality is true:

f(n) >= c * g(n)

You can see that it's actually the same inequality in both cases, the difference is only in how we define or choose the constant c. This slight difference means that the ω(...) is conceptually similar to the little o(...). Even more - if f(n) = ω(g(n)), then g(n) = o(f(n)) and vice versa.

Returning to your two algorithms - the algorithm #1 is bounded from both sides, so it looks more promising to me. The algorithm #2 can work longer than c * n * log(log(n)) for any (arbitrarily large) c, so it might eventually loose to the algorithm #1 for some n. Remember, it's only asymptotic analysis - so all depends on actual values of these constants and the problem size which has some practical meaning.

Answer 2

Big-O: The asymptotic worst case performance of an algorithm. The function n happens to be the lowest valued function that will always have a higher value than the actual running of the algorithm. [constant factors are ignored because they are meaningless as n reaches infinity]

Big-Ω: The opposite of Big-O. The asymptotic best case performance of an algorithm. The function n happens to be the highest valued function that will always have a lower value than the actual running of the algorithm. [constant factors are ignored because they are meaningless as n reaches infinity]

Big-Θ: The algorithm is so nicely behaved that some function n can describe both the algorithm's upper and lower bounds within the range defined by some constant value c. An algorithm could then have something like this: BigTheta(n), O(c1n), BigOmega(-c2n) where n == n throughout.

Little-o: Is like Big-O but sloppy. Big-O and the actual algorithm performance will actually become nearly identical as you head out to infinity. little-o is just some function that will always be bigger than the actual performance. Example: o(n^7) is a valid little-o for a function that might actually have linear or O(n) performance.

Little-ω: Is just the opposite. w(1) [constant time] would be a valid little omega for the same above function that might actually exihbit BigOmega(n) performance.