Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:02:11 05/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 2001 at 11:54:10, David Rasmussen wrote: >On May 15, 2001 at 06:35:42, Martin Schubert wrote: > >> >>O(...) is about asymptotical behaviour. If n is bounded, it doesn't make sense >>to talk about asymptotical behaviour. >> >>Martin > >Exactly. not exactly. O(n) discussions can be asymptotical in nature, if the "bound" is large enough to be considered infinite. IE I am _still_ waiting for someone to post a problem description (real-word problem) that is unbounded in any way. To date, no one has. Which means all real-world problems are O(1) and that definition is _still_ worthless and pointless. Big-Oh is _still_ a conceptual way to predict program run-time as the input is increased in some way. I posted a direct quote from one theory book yesterday. I can post others that make the same statement... In "theory" this "asymptotic behavior" might make sense. In practical terms, it does not, and all the complexity analysis of algorithms, for any real-world algorithm you name, must be of O(1) which is nonsense to those of us that are working on algorithms.
This page took 0.05 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.