> -----Original Message----- > From: robby.find...@gmail.com > [mailto:robby.find...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robby Findler > Sent: 14 September 2010 17:16 > To: Stephen Bloch > Cc: Jos Koot; users@racket-lang.org > Subject: Re: [racket] Looking for feedback on code style > > I think that racket guarantees that no vector has more > elements than the size of the largest fixnum (to support > optimizations). > > Also, Jos: you might want to use time-apply.
Yes, that would be simpler. Thanks, Jos > > Robby > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Stephen Bloch > <sbl...@adelphi.edu> wrote: > > > > On Sep 14, 2010, at 10:37 AM, Jos Koot wrote: > > > >> The following measurement shows O(n). > >> But O(n) = O(C+n) where C may be a big number. > > > > More relevantly, O(n) is hard to distinguish experimentally > from O(n log n). In particular, all the sizes you seem to > tried are well within a machine word, so I would expect O(n) > behavior in that region (for reasons that other people have > already pointed out). > > > > Big-O notation is about what happens _in the long run_, as > you "approach infinity". Any experimental analysis will only > tell you about a finite region, so it can't confirm or deny > any big-O estimate. Of course, if your "finite region" > covers all the problem sizes you will ever realistically want > to solve, then an experimental analysis is actually more > informative than a big-O estimate. > > > > > > > > Stephen Bloch > > sbl...@adelphi.edu > > > > _________________________________________________ > > For list-related administrative tasks: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
