Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 15:14:05 05/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 2001 at 13:02:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Well, several textbooks disagree with you in Big-O not being about asymptotic behavior, but I'm to tired to go into that now, as I'm sure you know what I mean, and that we basically do not disagree. Do you want me to elaborate?
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.