Number of Multiplications in the FFT Algorithm

Hello everyone,

maybe some of you know the formula for the number of multiplications in the FFT algorithm. This is again given as ##N/2 \cdot log(N)##. Why is that so? Can you really "prove" this?

I can only deduce this from what I know, because we have ##log(N)## levels and ##N/2## butterflies on each level. That makes ##N/2 \cdot log(N)##. Can you also prove this formally, e.g. via induction?

Thank you for your interest!!!

Basically, yes.
Each "butterfly" is a complex multiply - so four "real" multiplies.
And where you write "log", you mean log base 2.
Also, this works for FFTs where the number of elements is a power of 2. The Tukey-Cooley algorithm introduced in 1965 also specifies the handling of other N's.

The proof is fairly simple.
Multiplications occur in the butterfly modules and in the preparation of the ##q_k## factors - but those ##q_k## factors can be prepared at "compile time". Only the butterfly multiplies are executed at run time.
When N=1, the number of multiplies is zero.
Each time you double ##N=2*(N_{-1})##, you perform two "N/2" FFTs and then N/2 butterflies.

So, as you noted, you are doing N/2 butterflies at each stage and there are ##log_2(N)## stages.

Albert01 said:

Can you really "prove" this?

The traditional complex multiply, employs four internal multiplications.
I seem to remember that, where multiply is too slow, or expensive, that can be traded down to three.

On a historical aside, when the FFT was first published in 1965 by Cooley and Tukey, it was commonly referred to as the Tukey-Cooley DFT algorithm. Later it became known as the FFT or the Cooley-Tukey algorithm. In the 1965 paper, the authors names appear in the order Cooley, Tukey.
However, according to this report (and others), the first person to devise the basic FFT strategy was Carl Friedrich Gauss, who recorded it in an unpublished manuscript in about 1805.

In contrast, Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier published his "Treatise on the propagation of heat in solid bodies", which introduced his assertion that any function could be decomposed into a frequency spectrum, in 1807.
So the FFT existed in an unpublished form 2 years before the "Fourier Transform".

Baluncore said:

The traditional complex multiply, employs four internal multiplications.
I seem to remember that, where multiply is too slow, or expensive, that can be traded down to three.

There are FFT optimizations that do not change the basic Tukey-Cooley strategy. But the FFT algorithm as published in 1965 specifies a full complex multiply in each butterfly. If you "break the butterflies" and expand out the algorithm for N=4, I believe you are right about reducing the multiplications.

.Scott said:

If you "break the butterflies" and expand out the algorithm for N=4, I believe you are right about reducing the multiplications.

Not that way.
I refer to the four primitive multiplies within the one complex multiply.
"This algorithm uses only three multiplications, rather than four, and five additions or subtractions rather than two."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_algorithm#Complex_number_multiplication

Baluncore said:

I seem to remember that, where multiply is too slow, or expensive, that can be traded down to three.

Only by trading it for three more adds/subtracts. On what modern processor that you might use for computing FFTs is that going to be a good trade?

pbuk said:

On what modern processor that you might use for computing FFTs is that going to be a good trade?

Obviously, postmodern processors, with parallel multipliers, that have been optimised for pipelined signal processing and FFTs, will not be advantaged, unless multiple precision is required.

But this thread is about the proof of the number of "multiplies" required for an FFT. That presumed there was no tactical alternative, that uses less multiplies than the plain vanilla FFT.

There are very many ways to factor the FFT algorithm. If the OP had referred to the number of "arithmetic operations", rather than "multiplies", then my answer would be different.

Baluncore said:

unless multiple precision is required.

Good point.

Baluncore said:

But this thread is about the proof of the number of "multiplies" required for an FFT.

Good point again: I should have read from the top!