Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 23:20:54 05/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2001 at 18:16:48, Dann Corbit wrote: >Some people are insisting that finite inputs mean O(1). > >My insistence is that the big-O behavior should model the difference from n to >n+1 and from n to n-1 (past some point n0). > >There are no real algorithms with infinite inputs. These so-called algorithms >can never terminate. > >Because we cannot agree on definitions we can never come to an agreement. My >definitions are the classiscal defintions used in all the literature. The >alternative definitions make for interesting debate, but since they have no >value at predictions, they have no practical value. If you have solid definitions and a conjecture about search trees in chess related to these definitions, it should be possible to create a theorem and prove it without too much difficulty. That's the nature of science, especially mathematics. In general a scientific topic isn't democratic. Trying to reach an agreement is nonsensical, unless of course it's the definitions themselves. But if they were selectable, then they wouldn't be definitions. It makes for lousy science if you have to vote for definitions before you start. I have absolute no interest in the notation, but I'm surprised that you can argue about fact. But then again, I can argue about everything, be it fact or not ;-). Regards, Mogens
This page took 0 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.