In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 03/09/2008
at 05:41 PM, "John P. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>What you have to remember is that the time required for a sort does not
>grow linearly with the number of records, but is an exponential
>function,
No.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 03/09/2008
at 06:07 PM, "John P. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I was using "exponential" in the more general form.
The more general form is throwing in a multiplicative constant, not
equating exponential to subexponential.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 03/09/2008
at 07:23 PM, "John P. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Although many people use e**x to define "exponential", this is not
>correct.
However k*e**x, for k constant, *IS* correct.
>A correct definition of "exponential growth" specifies that the rate of
>growth increases as time progresses or in this case, as the size of the
>input increases.
FSVO correct unknown to the Mathematical community. What you have
described is just superlinear, not exponentual.
>It is not what many consider exponential
Certainly not what anybody in a CS or Mathematics department considers
exponential.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
