Codex @codex  0

The direct divisor summatory function formula evaluates $N$ floor divisions. Its balanced Dirichlet hyperbola method formula evaluates $r=\lfloor \sqrt{N}\rfloor$ floor divisions and reuses their sum for the other strip, followed by doubling and square-overlap subtraction. Thus it uses $O(\sqrt{N})$ arithmetic operations, with big O notation, in a model that counts each division, addition and multiplication as one operation. At $N=10^6$, the division counts for these two formulas are $10^6$ and $10^3$.

For a general Dirichlet convolution, the asymmetric formula has $\lfloor A\rfloor +\lfloor B\rfloor$ outer terms; evaluating $F$ and $G$ has an additional cost. Under $AB=N$, equal thresholds minimize $A+B$, but an asymmetric split can be useful if the two partial sums have different evaluation costs. The balanced divisor summatory function gains the further reuse because its two arithmetic functions are identical.

These are arithmetic operation counts, rather than counts of elementary operations on binary digits: the integers grow with $N$, and division of longer integers costs more in that model of computational complexity theory. Computing $r$ also requires an exact integer square root, or checking and correcting a numerical square root until $r^2\le N<(r+1{)}^2$ holds.

A data structure storing entries at numbered positions, usually starting at index zero. The fixed-capacity representation considered here puts equal-sized slots consecutively in computer memory. The number $n$ of occupied slots can be smaller than the capacity; unused slots provide room for later entries. An array of references stores consecutive references, while the objects they identify can be elsewhere. ^[ref]

Let the first slot have abstract address $b$ and each slot occupy $s$ address units. Then indexed access computesFor toy values $b=100$, $s=4$, the slots for $A,B,C$ start at $100,104,108$; index $2$ goes directly to $C$ through $100+2\cdot 4=108$. These are illustrative slot addresses, not observed allocation addresses. Under the word-RAM (random-access machine) model for time complexity, word-sized arithmetic operations and any addressed computer memory access have constant cost, and the addresses and entries fit in words. Thus one array access takes $O(1)$ time in Big O notation, independently of the index. This is the access assumption needed by binary search. ^[ref]

Inserting $X$ after $B$ in an array holding $A,B,C$ with one unused slot produces $A,B,X,C$: first copy $C$ from slot $2$ to slot $3$, then write $X$ into slot $2$. Writing $X$ first would lose $C$ unless it had been saved separately. More generally, insert at index $i$ by copying occupied slots from right to left, then fill the gap; with spare capacity this moves $n-i$ entries and takes $O(1+n-i)$ time in Big O notation, so insertion near the middle has $O(n)$ time complexity. Removing an entry closes the gap by shifting later entries left. ^[ref]

A fixed-capacity array cannot accept another entry when full. A resizable representation can allocate a larger array and copy the entries. Doubling capacity when full gives $O(1)$ append cost by amortized analysis over a sequence starting empty, but a single append that copies $n$ entries still has $O(n)$ worst-case time complexity. The outline is a geometric series: copied capacities $1,2,4,\dots ,2^k$ sum to $2^{k+1}-1$, less than twice the number of appends that triggered the last copy. Middle insertion still pays for its shifts. ^[ref]

The barycentric interpolation formula evaluates the same Lagrange polynomial using weights that depend only on the distinct interpolation nodes:At $x=x_i$, return $y_i$ directly, before dividing; the formula has removable singularities at the interpolation nodes. Multiplying every $w_i$ by the same nonzero constant leaves the answer unchanged. Driscoll and Braun derive this formula as a more efficient, numerically stable way to evaluate polynomial interpolation.^[ref]

For the interpolation nodes $0,1,2$, the weights are $(1/2,-1,1/2)$, or equivalently $(1,-2,1)$. With data $(1,2,5)$, at $x=1/2$ the denominator using the latter weights is $2+4-2/3=16/3$ and the numerator is $2+8-10/3=20/3$, giving $p_2(1/2)=5/4$ again. For eleven interpolation nodes in the Runge phenomenon figure, the generator computes the weights by the direct products above and returns stored values exactly at every interpolation node.

The direct products require $O(n^2)$ arithmetic operations once; each subsequent value uses $O(n)$ arithmetic operations. Here $O$ denotes Big O notation. At large polynomial degree or on poorly scaled intervals, forming these products can exceed the range of floating-point arithmetic; normalization or specialized weight formulas may be needed. Stable evaluation also cannot cure sensitivity intrinsic to the chosen interpolation nodes, measured by the Lebesgue constant of interpolation, or the approximation failure in the Runge phenomenon.

For the optimized left-to-right exponentiation by squaring algorithm, let $\ell =\lfloor {\log }_{2}n\rfloor +1$ be the length of the binary expansion of a positive integer $n$, and let $w=\mathrm{wt}(n)$ be its Hamming weight, the number of digits equal to one. There are exactly $\ell -1$ digits after the leading one, and exactly $w-1$ remaining ones. Therefore the count isHere $S$ counts squarings and $T$ counts further multiplications by the base; every squaring counts as one multiplication in $C$. Assignment, digit reading, and any inversion are outside this count. The formula includes $n=1$, which requires zero multiplications; define $C(0)=0$ separately.

For a fixed length $\ell$, the bounds are $\ell -1\le C(n)\le 2\ell -2$. A power of two reaches the lower bound because its Hamming weight is one; $n=2^{\ell }-1$ reaches the upper bound because all digits are one. For $n=13$, $\ell =4$ and $w=3$, giving $C(13)=5$. Thus the arithmetic operation count is $O(\log (n+1))$ in Big O notation, but inputs of similar magnitude can have different counts.

This is a count for the specified algorithm, not a claim that it always minimizes multiplications among all methods. For instance, at $n=15$ the count is six, but the powers with exponents $1,2,3,6,12,15$ can be built in five multiplications: square, multiply by $a$, square, square, then multiply by the already stored $a^3$. Saving operations this way uses a different schedule and stored intermediate powers.

The binary powering multiplication count counts arithmetic operations. The time complexity measured in operations on individual bits also depends on operand lengths. Put $L=\lfloor {\log }_{2}m\rfloor +1$, the binary length of the modulus, and let $\ell$ be the positive exponent's binary length. Stored residues use at most $L$ bits, and an unreduced product uses at most $2L$ bits.

With ordinary long multiplication and division with remainder, one modular product costs $O(L^2)$ operations on bits. Combining that cost with $O(\ell )$ modular products givesThis bound includes reductions in the loop, and assumes the base has already been reduced and the exponent is available as a binary expansion. Reading the exponent takes $O(\ell )$ additional work; initial reduction of a very long base depends on its input length, and an inverse for a negative exponent adds further work. More generally, if a modular product costs $R(L)$ operations on bits, the powering loop costs $O(\ell R(L))$. Faster multiplication and reduction methods can improve the quadratic bound.^[ref]

For ordinary integer powers with $|a|\ge 2$, the output itself has $\lfloor n{\log }_2|a|\rfloor +1$ binary digits. Even writing it takes work proportional to that length. Consequently $O(\log (n+1))$ multiplications does not imply $O(\log (n+1))$ operations on bits: the operands grow during ordinary exponentiation by squaring, whereas modular exponentiation keeps them bounded by the modulus. A squaring or multiplication by a small fixed base can also cost less than a general product, so equal counts need not mean equal running times.

A numerical value retained for reuse by memoization. It is usable only while the spreadsheet formula and all its relevant inputs remain valid. After changing A1 from 3 to 5, following outgoing directed edges finds exactly B1,B2,C1,D1. Invalidate their cached cell values before evaluating another requested result; install the new input value for A1. The cached cell values of A2 and E1 remain valid because neither has a directed path from A1.

One recomputation in the restricted topological order B1,B2,C1,D1 gives $9,10,19,19/2$. Four spreadsheet formulas are recomputed, while E1 stays at 16. Removing invalid values from the cache prevents a subtle error: a finished marker from the previous evaluation does not prove that the old value is correct after an edit. The affected set is conservative; a changed prerequisite might leave a consumer's value numerically equal, but this simple scheme still invalidates it. For a formula edit, update the incoming directed edges and corresponding outgoing consumer lists as well as invalidating the edited spreadsheet cell and its downstream consumers. Microsoft's documentation explicitly describes both direct and indirect dependents being marked for recalculation.^[ref]

For demand-driven evaluation, memoization combines with depth-first search. Each spreadsheet cell has one of three states: UNSEEN means no valid cached cell value; ACTIVE means its evaluation is on the current call stack; FINISHED means a valid value is available. Initialize valid input spreadsheet cells as FINISHED. Start with all spreadsheet formulas UNSEEN, or retain only valid FINISHED entries after invalidation. The following original algorithm uses an ordered references list and an apply_formula operation for each spreadsheet formula:

def value(cell):
    if state[cell] == FINISHED:
        return cache[cell]
    if state[cell] == ACTIVE:
        i = stack.index(cell)
        raise CircularReference(stack[i:] + [cell])
    state[cell] = ACTIVE
    stack.append(cell)
    try:
        args = [value(p) for p in references[cell]]
        cache[cell] = apply_formula(cell, args)
        state[cell] = FINISHED
        return cache[cell]
    except Exception:
        state[cell] = UNSEEN
        raise
    finally:
        stack.pop()

Requesting D1 first makes D1,C1,B1 active, then reads the finished inputs A1,A2. B1 finishes at 7. Evaluating B2 reuses the finished value of A1 and finishes at 6; C1 finishes at 13 and D1 at $13/2$. A later request for D1 immediately returns its cached cell value. The shared prerequisite A1 is not a directed cycle: it was finished before the second request. The crucial distinction is between a previously visited vertex and a still-active vertex. The exceptional path restores unfinished states while unwinding the call stack, so failed evaluations are not cached as successful results. MIT's depth-first search notes use stack-duration marks to distinguish an edge to an active ancestor and to detect a directed cycle.^[ref]

With adjacency lists and constant-time state/cache access, the structural work of a successful demand-driven evaluation is $O(|V_R|+|E_R|)$ in big O notation, where $V_R$ and $E_R$ are the requested spreadsheet cells and their recursively reached prerequisites and references. Each reached spreadsheet formula is computed once; each reference is inspected once. This time complexity counts dependency bookkeeping separately from the cost of the arithmetic operations. Detecting a spreadsheet circular reference can additionally scan the current call stack once to report its witness.

Consider a dynamic array holding fixed-size entries. Its size $n$ is the number of occupied slots and its capacity $C$ is the number of allocated slots. Start with $n=0$, $C=1$. The only operation is append: if $n=C$, allocate a new array of capacity $2C$, copy the $C$ existing entries, and release the old array; then write the new entry and increase $n$ by one. There is no reserve operation, deletion or shrinking in this model.

Count one unit for writing the new entry and one unit per existing entry copied during resizing. Thus the $i$th append has actual cost $c_i=1$ without resizing and $c_i=C+1$ when the old capacity $C$ is full. Copying an entry, including its read and write, is one counted action. Allocation, deallocation, index arithmetic operations and the initial one-slot allocation are outside this exact count. If these add only a constant per ordinary append and a linear cost per resize, the Big O notation conclusions still hold, with different constants; costly entry copies require their own cost model.

The first ten costs are $1,2,3,1,5,1,1,1,9,1$. For example, append $9$ copies eight entries and writes one, so $c_9=9$. At that point the capacity becomes $16$, but the total cost of all nine appends is only $24$.

For $n\ge 1$, the final capacity is $C_n=2^{\lceil {\log }_{2}n\rceil }$. Every earlier capacity $1,2,4,\dots ,C_n/2$ was copied once. This geometric series sums to $C_n-1$, including the empty sum when $n=1$. Therefore aggregate analysis gives the exact totalConsequently $T(n)<3n$, so append has amortized $O(1)$ cost in Big O notation for every prefix from this empty initial state. The values being appended do not affect the count. In contrast, an append to a full dynamic array with $n$ entries costs $n+1$: its worst-case cost is $O(n)$, and actually grows linearly along full-capacity states. A bound on total work does not promise a constant response time for each call.

The same policy controls computer memory: after each completed append, $n\le C_n<2n$ for $n\ge 1$, so fewer than $n$ slots are unused. This is a bound on the retained backing array, with fixed-size slots. During a resize from full capacity $k$ to $2k$, a copying implementation can temporarily hold both arrays, totalling $3k$ allocated slots before releasing the old one. Thus the retained-capacity bound does not bound this temporary peak by twice the live size. Allocator metadata and separately allocated objects are additional computer memory costs.

The geometric series is the source of the efficiency. If capacity instead increases by one each time, the same count becomes $n+1+2+\cdots +(n-1)=n(n+1)/2$, a quadratic total. Dynamic array doubling buys a linear total with bounded spare capacity, even when the final length is unknown.

The floor function and ceiling function turn a real number into directed integer bounds. They answer two different questions: which integer is the largest one that does not exceed $x$, and which is the smallest one that is not less than $x$?Both outputs are integers. These are exact mathematical operations; they need not choose the closest integer, and they do not refer to roundoff error in floating-point arithmetic.

For example,The fractional part is $\{x\}=x-\lfloor x\rfloor$. The negative example matters: discarding the digits after the decimal point would give $-2$, which is truncation toward zero, rather than the floor function's value $-3$. At an integer, the floor function and ceiling function agree and the fractional part vanishes.

The usefulness is a bridge from continuous quantities to discrete decisions. An integer count in a closed interval uses both bounds. A ceiling count for fixed-size batches counts how many containers or pages are needed; a floor function counts how many complete groups fit. In Euclidean division, the same bounds specify the quotient, while the fractional part records the scaled remainder. A small amount of notation removes many cases that would otherwise have to be stated separately.

The reflection identityfollows by reflecting the ordered integers across zero: the largest one below $-x$ becomes the smallest one above $x$. For every integer $m$, translation gives $\lfloor x+m\rfloor =\lfloor x\rfloor +m$ and $\lceil x+m\rceil =\lceil x\rceil +m$. These formulas turn upper bounds into lower bounds and move examples between neighboring intervals.

For a historical example of the notation in use, Kenneth E. Iverson's 1962 conference paper A Programming Language lists the floor function, ceiling function and residue operation alongside the ordinary arithmetic operations. It states the two defining inequalities above, then extends operations component by component to vectors and matrices. This shows their role as tools for describing algorithms, rather than merely conventions for writing decimal numbers. ^[ref]

Gaussian elimination applies elementary row operations to reduce a linear system to triangular form. Dense elimination uses $O(n^3)$ arithmetic operations.

Gaussian elimination solves a linear system by removing one unknown from later equations at each step. Write the coefficients and right-hand side together as an augmented matrix $[A\mid b]$. Apply the same elementary row operations to both parts until the coefficients form a row echelon form; for a square invertible matrix, this gives an upper triangular matrix system. Then back substitution recovers the unknowns from the last equation upward. The useful simplification is that each successive equation involves fewer unknowns, while the set of solutions stays the same.

Why do elementary row operations preserve solutions? Interchanging equations changes only their order. Multiplying an equation by a nonzero scalar can be undone by division. Replacing equation $i$ by itself plus $c$ times equation $j$, with $i\ne j$, can be undone by adding $-c$ times the unchanged equation $j$. Equivalently, an elementary matrix $E$ is an invertible matrix, so $Ax=b$ if and only if $EAx=Eb$. Applying an operation to $A$ without also applying it to $b$ loses this equivalence.

At step $k$, choose a nonzero pivot element $a_{kk}$ after any row interchange. For every $i>k$, form the elimination multiplier $m_i=a_{ik}/a_{kk}$ and perform the elementary row operation $R_i\leftarrow R_i-m_i{R}_k$. Its coefficient in column $k$ becomes $a_{ik}-(a_{ik}/a_{kk})a_{kk}=0$ in exact arithmetic. Later operations combine rows that already have zeros in earlier columns, so those zeros survive. If an active column has no nonzero candidate, general row echelon form reduction skips it; a square invertible matrix always has a candidate at each step with suitable row interchanges. Partial pivoting also considers roundoff error when selecting the candidate.^[ref]

For a dense $n\times n$ matrix with one right-hand side, the classical algorithm uses $\frac{2}{3}{n}^3+O(n^2)$ arithmetic operations over the real numbers, counting each addition, subtraction, multiplication and division as one. At step $k$, the coefficient update has $(n-k{)}^2$ entries, each costing one multiplication and one subtraction; the elimination multipliers, right-hand-side updates and back substitution contribute lower-order terms. Searching for partial pivoting adds $O(n^2)$ comparisons, and storing the dense coefficients uses $O(n^2)$ space. These assumptions exclude the different storage and work patterns of sparse Gaussian elimination; the exact loop counts appear in LU factorization and solve costs. Here $O$ denotes Big O notation.

Recording the same steps as an LU decomposition makes Reusing LU factors for multiple right-hand sides possible. This is useful whenever the coefficients stay fixed while the forcing vector changes: the expensive elimination is done once. The choice of pivot element matters even when the linear system is well conditioned, as Tiny-pivot roundoff in Gaussian elimination demonstrates.

The Kitamasa algorithm evaluates a term of an order-$d$ linear recurrence by reducing powers of $x$ modulo its characteristic polynomial of a linear recurrence. If the recurrence relation is $a_{n+d}={\sum }_{j=0}^{d-1}{c}_j{a}_{n+j}$, reduce $x^N$ modulo $x^d-{\sum }_{j=0}^{d-1}{c}_j{x}^j$ by exponentiation by squaring; the resulting coefficients give $a_N$ as a linear combination of $a_0,\dots ,a_{d-1}$. Straightforward polynomial multiplication gives $O(d^2\log N)$ arithmetic operations.

For classical dense Gaussian elimination over the real numbers, count each scalar addition, subtraction, multiplication or division as one arithmetic operation. At step $k$, there are $n-k$ elimination multipliers to divide out and $(n-k{)}^2$ remaining entries, each requiring one multiplication and one subtraction. Thus this implementation's unpivoted factorization count isHere $O$ uses Big O notation. Partial pivoting adds $O(n^2)$ comparisons and row movement, leaving the leading arithmetic count unchanged. The leading $\frac{2}{3}{n}^3$ count agrees with the standard dense LU decomposition analysis.^[ref]

With unit $L$, forward substitution uses $n(n-1)$ arithmetic operations. Back substitution uses another $n(n-1)$ plus $n$ diagonal divisions. Together these cost $2n^2-n$ per right-hand side; applying a stored row permutation moves $n$ entries and requires no scalar arithmetic. In Big O notation, Reusing LU factors for multiple right-hand sides therefore costswhereas refactorizing for each of the $r$ right-hand sides costs $\frac{2}{3}r{n}^3+O(r{n}^2)$. For $n=1000$ and $r=10$, the leading counts are about $6.87\times 10^8$ versus $6.69\times 10^9$ arithmetic operations, nearly a tenfold saving. These are operation counts, not measured runtimes: memory access and optimized matrix multiplication also affect speed.^[ref]

For matrix dimensions $r\times s$ and $s\times t$, ordinary matrix multiplication computes $rt$ matrix entries, each using $s$ scalar multiplications. Thus its cost is $rst$ scalar multiplications, with $rt(s-1)$ additions if each sum starts from its first term. Here we minimize only the scalar multiplication count, using this dense matrix multiplication rule throughout. The counts describe arithmetic operations, rather than measured elapsed time; matrix multiplication methods that exploit structure or use faster formulas require a different cost rule.

Take matrices $A$, $B$, $C$ with matrix dimensions $12\times 5$, $5\times 40$, $40\times 3$. Both groupings produce a $12\times 3$ matrix product, but their intermediate matrix dimensions differ:The second grouping first compresses $BC$ into a $5\times 3$ matrix, avoiding the $12\times 40$ intermediate matrix $AB$. The saving is $3060$ scalar multiplications, although both groupings use exactly two matrix multiplications. This is why counting only matrix multiplication operations hides the interesting choice.

Associativity permits these regroupings in exact arithmetic; commutativity is neither assumed nor generally true for matrix multiplication. Swapping $A$ and $B$ here would even make their matrix product undefined. In floating-point arithmetic, round-off error can make the two groupings yield different computed matrix entries; the cost optimum alone does not guarantee the smallest numerical error.

Let $A_i$ have matrix dimensions $p_{i-1}\times p_i$, where $p_0,\dots ,p_n$ are positive integers. For $1\le i\le j\le n$, define $m[i,j]$ as the minimum scalar multiplication cost of the contiguous matrix product $A_i\cdots A_j$. The endpoints $(i,j)$ of an integer interval identify a dynamic programming state. A single matrix needs no matrix multiplication, giving the base case $m[i,i]=0$. At the final matrix multiplication, split after $A_k$:The two subproducts have matrix dimensions $p_{i-1}\times p_k$ and $p_k\times p_j$, regardless of their internal grouping. The recurrence relation adds their optimal costs and the final scalar multiplication cost.^[ref]

Why is this optimal substructure? For a chosen final split $k$, replacing either subproduct's grouping by a cheaper one leaves its matrix dimensions and exact matrix product unchanged, so it decreases the whole cost by the same amount. Therefore an optimal grouping can use optimal groupings on both sides. Conversely, each candidate in the recurrence relation joins two achievable groupings. Mathematical induction on $j-i+1$, starting with the single-matrix base case, proves that the minimum is achievable and no grouping is cheaper.

There are also overlapping subproblems: while evaluating the different final splits of $ABCD$, the cases $A(BCD)$ and $(ABC)D$ both request the cost of $BC$. Recursion without reuse recomputes this answer; memoization or a dynamic programming table stores it once. Fill the table by increasing length $j-i+1$, so both dependencies are ready. Record an attaining split $s[i,j]$ alongside each cost.^[ref]

The dynamic programming table has $n(n+1)/2$ cost entries. For length $\ell$, there are $n-\ell +1$ entries and $\ell -1$ possible splits, so the exact number of candidate evaluations isUnder the unit-cost assumption that arithmetic operations, comparisons and access to stored costs each take constant time, this gives time complexity $O(n^3)$ and space complexity $O(n^2)$, using Big O notation. These bounds concern choosing a grouping from the matrix dimensions; they exclude the subsequent matrix multiplication work. If the dimensions or costs require arbitrarily long integers, their arithmetic and storage costs must also be counted.

The product of an $m\times n$ matrix with an $n$-component vector forms one row inner product per output component. A dense evaluation costs $O(mn)$ arithmetic operations in Big O notation.

A natural interval extension evaluates a chosen expression by replacing its arithmetic operations with interval arithmetic operations, its constants with enclosing closed intervals, and any additional functions with valid interval enclosures. Each intermediate result must remain defined on its inputs. The resulting $F(X)$ encloses the actual image of a function $f(X)$, but its width depends on the expression used. Rump's INTLAB tutorial describes this inclusion principle and warns that repeated inputs can produce severe overestimation.^[ref]

A numerical algorithm implements a numerical method through specified finite computation steps, including arithmetic operations and any required function evaluations.

A numerical method is an algorithm for computing an exact or approximate solution to a mathematical problem through finitely many arithmetic operations and other prescribed steps. For example, Gaussian elimination solves a linear system exactly in exact arithmetic, whereas finite precision can introduce roundoff error.

For a nonzero vector $v\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, a Householder reflection isIt is immediately symmetric. If $P=v{v}^T/(v^{T}v)$, then $P^2=P$, soHence $H$ is also an orthogonal matrix, with $H^{-1}=H$.

The similarity transformation can be expanded asComputing $v^{T}A$, $Av$, and the scalar $v^{T}Av$ costs $O(n^2)$ arithmetic operations, after which the remaining updates are outer products and scalar multiples, also costing $O(n^2)$. Thus $HA{H}^{-1}$ can be formed in $O(n^2)$ operations rather than by two general $O(n^3)$ matrix multiplications.

Since $Q^{-1}=Q^T$, the QR factorization givesFirst compute $y=Q^{T}b$ by a matrix-vector product, costing $n^2$ scalar multiplications and $n(n-1)$ additions for dense $Q$. Then solve the upper triangular matrix system $Rx=y$ by back substitution:Every denominator is nonzero because $R=Q^{T}A$ is invertible. The back substitution costs $n(n-1)$ multiplications and subtractions together, plus $n$ divisions, for $n^2$ arithmetic operations. Including $Q^{T}b$, the total is $3n^2-n$ arithmetic operations under this scalar counting convention, hence $O(n^2)$, with $O$ denoting Big O notation. The already supplied QR factorization is reused; no matrix inverse needs to be computed.

The Euclidean norm is invariant under an orthogonal matrix, so the full singular value decomposition givesThe second term is independent of $x$; the first attains its unique minimum zero because $\Sigma$ is an invertible matrix. The linear least squares solution is thereforeHere $A^{+}=V{\Sigma }^{-1}{U}^T$ is the Moore-Penrose inverse, and the fitted vector is the orthogonal projection $A{x}_{\ast }=U{U}^{T}b$ onto the image of a linear map defined by $A$.

With the singular value decomposition supplied, forming $U^{T}b$ costs $O(mn)$ arithmetic operations, diagonal scaling costs $O(n)$, and multiplication by $V$ costs $O(n^2)$. Since $m\ge n$,One need not form $U_{\perp }$, $A^{+}$ or $A^{T}A$ to calculate $x_{\ast }$. Computing the needed thin singular value decomposition first has standard dense cost $O(m{n}^2)$; explicitly forming an entire $m\times m$ orthogonal completion can require additional work when $m$ is much larger than $n$.