This is a basic question... but I'm thinking that O(M+N) is the same as O(max(M,N)), since the larger term should dominate as we go to infinity? Also, that would be different from O(min(M,N)), is that right? I keep seeing this notation, esp. when discussing graph algorithms. For example, you routinely see: O(|V| + |E|) (e.g., http://algs4.cs.princeton.edu/41undirected/).
3 Answers
I know this is an old thread, but as I am studying this now I figured I would add my two cents for those currently searching similar questions.
I would argue that O(n+m), in the context of a graph represented as an adjacency list, is exactly that and cannot be changed for the following reasons:
1) O(n+m) = O(n) + O(m), but O(m) is upper bounded by O(n^2) so that O(n+m) = O(n) + O(n^2) = O(n^2). However this is purely in terms of n only, that is, it is only taking into account the vertices and giving a weak upper bound (weak because it is trying to represent the edges with vertices). This does show though that O(n) does not equal O(n+m) as there COULD be a quadratic amount of edges when compared to vertices.
2) Saying O(n+m) takes into account all the elements that have to be passed through when implementing an algorithm which is reduced to something like Breadth First Search (BFS). As it takes into account all the elements in the graph exactly once, it can be considered linear and is a more strict analysis that upper bounding the edges with n^2. One could, for the sake of notation write something like n = |V| + |E| thus BFS runs is O(n) and gives the reader a sense of linearity, but generally, as the OP has mentioned, it is written as O(n+m) where n= |V| and m = |E|.
Thanks a lot, hope this helps someone.
Related