What would cause an algorithm to have O(log n) complexity?

Question

My knowledge of big-O is limited, and when log terms show up in the equation it throws me off even more.

Can someone maybe explain to me in simple terms what a O(log n) algorithm is? Where does the logarithm come from?

This specifically came up when I was trying to solve this midterm practice question:

Let X(1..n) and Y(1..n) contain two lists of integers, each sorted in nondecreasing order. Give an O(log n)-time algorithm to find the median (or the nth smallest integer) of all 2n combined elements. For ex, X = (4, 5, 7, 8, 9) and Y = (3, 5, 8, 9, 10), then 7 is the median of the combined list (3, 4, 5, 5, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10). [Hint: use concepts of binary search]

Answer 1

I have to agree that it's pretty weird the first time you see an O(log n) algorithm... where on earth does that logarithm come from? However, it turns out that there's several different ways that you can get a log term to show up in big-O notation. Here are a few:

Repeatedly dividing by a constant

Take any number n; say, 16. How many times can you divide n by two before you get a number less than or equal to one? For 16, we have that

16 / 2 = 8  8 / 2 = 4  4 / 2 = 2  2 / 2 = 1 

Notice that this ends up taking four steps to complete. Interestingly, we also have that log₂ 16 = 4. Hmmm... what about 128?

128 / 2 = 64  64 / 2 = 32  32 / 2 = 16  16 / 2 = 8   8 / 2 = 4   4 / 2 = 2   2 / 2 = 1 

This took seven steps, and log₂ 128 = 7. Is this a coincidence? Nope! There's a good reason for this. Suppose that we divide a number n by 2 i times. Then we get the number n / 2ⁱ. If we want to solve for the value of i where this value is at most 1, we get

n / 2ⁱ ≤ 1

n ≤ 2ⁱ

log₂ n ≤ i

In other words, if we pick an integer i such that i ≥ log₂ n, then after dividing n in half i times we'll have a value that is at most 1. The smallest i for which this is guaranteed is roughly log₂ n, so if we have an algorithm that divides by 2 until the number gets sufficiently small, then we can say that it terminates in O(log n) steps.

An important detail is that it doesn't matter what constant you're dividing n by (as long as it's greater than one); if you divide by the constant k, it will take log_k n steps to reach 1. Thus any algorithm that repeatedly divides the input size by some fraction will need O(log n) iterations to terminate. Those iterations might take a lot of time and so the net runtime needn't be O(log n), but the number of steps will be logarithmic.

So where does this come up? One classic example is binary search, a fast algorithm for searching a sorted array for a value. The algorithm works like this:

• If the array is empty, return that the element isn't present in the array.
• Otherwise:
  • Look at the middle element of the array.
  • If it's equal to the element we're looking for, return success.
  • If it's greater than the element we're looking for:
    • Throw away the second half of the array.
    • Repeat
  • If it's less than the the element we're looking for:
    • Throw away the first half of the array.
    • Repeat

For example, to search for 5 in the array

1   3   5   7   9   11   13 

We'd first look at the middle element:

1   3   5   7   9   11   13             ^ 

Since 7 > 5, and since the array is sorted, we know for a fact that the number 5 can't be in the back half of the array, so we can just discard it. This leaves

1   3   5 

So now we look at the middle element here:

1   3   5     ^ 

Since 3 < 5, we know that 5 can't appear in the first half of the array, so we can throw the first half array to leave

        5 

Again we look at the middle of this array:

        5         ^ 

Since this is exactly the number we're looking for, we can report that 5 is indeed in the array.

So how efficient is this? Well, on each iteration we're throwing away at least half of the remaining array elements. The algorithm stops as soon as the array is empty or we find the value we want. In the worst case, the element isn't there, so we keep halving the size of the array until we run out of elements. How long does this take? Well, since we keep cutting the array in half over and over again, we will be done in at most O(log n) iterations, since we can't cut the array in half more than O(log n) times before we run out of array elements.

Algorithms following the general technique of divide-and-conquer (cutting the problem into pieces, solving those pieces, then putting the problem back together) tend to have logarithmic terms in them for this same reason - you can't keep cutting some object in half more than O(log n) times. You might want to look at merge sort as a great example of this.

Processing values one digit at a time

How many digits are in the base-10 number n? Well, if there are k digits in the number, then we'd have that the biggest digit is some multiple of 10^k. The largest k-digit number is 999...9, k times, and this is equal to 10^{k + 1} - 1. Consequently, if we know that n has k digits in it, then we know that the value of n is at most 10^{k + 1} - 1. If we want to solve for k in terms of n, we get

n ≤ 10^k+1 - 1

n + 1 ≤ 10^k+1

log₁₀ (n + 1) ≤ k + 1

(log₁₀ (n + 1)) - 1 ≤ k

From which we get that k is approximately the base-10 logarithm of n. In other words, the number of digits in n is O(log n).

For example, let's think about the complexity of adding two large numbers that are too big to fit into a machine word. Suppose that we have those numbers represented in base 10, and we'll call the numbers m and n. One way to add them is through the grade-school method - write the numbers out one digit at a time, then work from the right to the left. For example, to add 1337 and 2065, we'd start by writing the numbers out as

    1  3  3  7 +   2  0  6  5 ============== 

We add the last digit and carry the 1:

          1     1  3  3  7 +   2  0  6  5 ==============              2 

Then we add the second-to-last ("penultimate") digit and carry the 1:

       1  1     1  3  3  7 +   2  0  6  5 ==============           0  2 

Next, we add the third-to-last ("antepenultimate") digit:

       1  1     1  3  3  7 +   2  0  6  5 ==============        4  0  2 

Finally, we add the fourth-to-last ("preantepenultimate"... I love English) digit:

       1  1     1  3  3  7 +   2  0  6  5 ==============     3  4  0  2 

Now, how much work did we do? We do a total of O(1) work per digit (that is, a constant amount of work), and there are O(max{log n, log m}) total digits that need to be processed. This gives a total of O(max{log n, log m}) complexity, because we need to visit each digit in the two numbers.

Many algorithms get an O(log n) term in them from working one digit at a time in some base. A classic example is radix sort, which sorts integers one digit at a time. There are many flavors of radix sort, but they usually run in time O(n log U), where U is the largest possible integer that's being sorted. The reason for this is that each pass of the sort takes O(n) time, and there are a total of O(log U) iterations required to process each of the O(log U) digits of the largest number being sorted. Many advanced algorithms, such as Gabow's shortest-paths algorithm or the scaling version of the Ford-Fulkerson max-flow algorithm, have a log term in their complexity because they work one digit at a time.

---

As to your second question about how you solve that problem, you may want to look at this related question which explores a more advanced application. Given the general structure of problems that are described here, you now can have a better sense of how to think about problems when you know there's a log term in the result, so I would advise against looking at the answer until you've given it some thought.

Hope this helps!