Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 22:11:50 05/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2001 at 00:41:38, Uri Blass wrote: [snip] >No >Chess is clearly polynomial and even O(1) like every solvable problem that is a >practical problem. > >You need constant time to solve chess when the problem is only that the constant >is large. > >The only problems that are exponential are problems when the size of the input >has no finite upper bound. >You can see the input of every practical problem in the world as something that >has an upper bound so saying that an algorithm is not O(1) has only mathematical >meaning and not practical meaning. Unbelievable that you also do not understand Big-O notation. I suggest that you read my other posts on the topic. Anyone who says that an O(1) process is not O(exp(n)) does not know what the notation means!!! Anyway, you can say what O(f(n)) is by looking only at the algorithms not the data. Do you really understand this!? Too bad that people will try to use computer science terms in an authoritative way without knowing what they mean.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.