Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:52:10 05/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 2001 at 18:14:05, David Rasmussen wrote: [snip] >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? The big-O notation is used to describe how an algorithm performs as n grows large. What large means is purely a function of what the big-O type is. If q(n) is O(exp(n)), then "large" is a small number. 50 is unthinkable, for instance. If q(n) is O(log(log(n))), then "large" is an enourmous number. One quintillion is not a problem in the slightest, for instance. I think everyone really knows what everybody means by now. We seem to be quibbling about semantics but when it boils down to it -- we all know where everyone else is coming from (I think). Or at least we ought to. I think everyone has valid points. It is hard for me to imagine pure math uses for big-O, but then again, my degree was in applied math. ;-)
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.