Divide-and-conquer combination cost ($T(n)=aT(n/2)+g(n)$)

The combination cost is the work needed to reconstruct an answer from the returned smaller answers. In a time complexity calculation, also count partitioning the input, preparing arguments, and other work outside recursive calls. Write their total as $g(n)$ for a size-$n$ call. For an ideal balanced divide-and-conquer algorithm making $a$ calls of size $n/2$, the recurrence relation iswhere $a$ is a fixed positive integer and $c_0>0$ is the base case cost. Take $n=2^k$, a power of two, so the size becomes one after exactly $k$ divisions. This is a model of total sequential work: all $a$ smaller calls contribute, even if a machine could run some simultaneously.

At level $j$, there are $a^j$ calls, each of size $n/2^j$. Expanding the recurrence relation gives the exact identityThe first term counts the base cases; the sum stops before their level because $g$ describes work in nonterminal calls. This separates depth, number of calls, and local work. Merge sort has two smaller calls and a linear merge algorithm, giving $T(n)=2T(n/2)+O(n)=O(n\log n)$ in Big O notation. The MIT notes derive this by summing equal work across levels, and contrast it with the same two-way split followed by quadratic local work.^[ref]

For the first constructed model, set $a=2$, $c_0=1$ and $g(s)=s$. Every internal level costs $2^j(n/2^j)=n$, while the leaves cost $n$. Thus $T(n)=n{\log }_{2}n+n$, giving $T(16)=80$. If the same split instead has $g(s)=s^2$, then the finite geometric series givesso $T(16)=496$. The root alone already costs $n^2$ in this second model. Smaller arguments do not eliminate expensive reconstruction. These are stipulated operation counts, rather than measured running times or exact merge sort instruction counts.

Binary search has a different saving: after its comparison, only one half remains a candidate. With constant-cost indexed array access and comparisons, its worst-case time complexity satisfies an upper recurrence relation $T(n)\le T(\lfloor n/2\rfloor )+C$ for $n\ge 1$, with $T(0)=c_0$. There is one continuing branch, rather than two. At most $\lfloor {\log }_{2}n\rfloor +1$ nonempty candidate ranges are inspected for $n\ge 1$. Copying the retained half into a fresh array on every step would add linear work at that step and lose this logarithmic bound. The shrinking range and its representation both matter.