On 12/09/2015 03:06 AM, Algo wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 at 01:40:12 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 12/09/2015 02:02 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Big-O notation deals with asymptotic
behaviour as the variables approach infinity, so behaviour at 'small'
values of m and n are
I'm working on the complexity algebra and of course trying to simplify
my life :o). One good simplification would be to get rid of
log(polynomial_sum) terms such as:
log(n + m)
log(n^^3 + n1^^2 + n2)
etc.
Do any of these occur in some important algorithms? I couldn't think of
any nor find
On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 15:25:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I'm working on the complexity algebra and of course trying to
simplify my life :o). One good simplification would be to get
rid of log(polynomial_sum) terms such as:
log(n + m)
log(n^^3 + n1^^2 + n2)
etc.
Do any of
On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 16:25:50 UTC, tn wrote:
... and that m is more than polynomially larger than s. ...
Should of course be "larger than n".
On 12/08/2015 04:25 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm working on the complexity algebra and of course trying to simplify
my life :o). One good simplification would be to get rid of
log(polynomial_sum) terms such as:
log(n + m)
log(n^^3 + n1^^2 + n2)
etc.
Do any of these occur in some
On 12/08/2015 12:12 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
O(log(n+m)) = O(log(n)+log(m)).
Noice. Yes I did miss it. Thx!! -- Andrei
On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 17:33:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 12/08/2015 12:12 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
O(log(n+m)) = O(log(n)+log(m)).
Noice. Yes I did miss it. Thx!! -- Andrei
Surely I'm missing something obvious but why is it true exactly?
On 12/08/2015 04:55 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
The context is asymptotic runtime bounds. The special cases for small
values of continuous logarithms can just be defined away. They have no
relevance for asymptotic runtime analysis (even though defining big-O
adequately for multiple variables is more
On 12/08/2015 11:31 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/08/2015 04:55 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
The context is asymptotic runtime bounds. The special cases for small
values of continuous logarithms can just be defined away. They have no
relevance for asymptotic runtime analysis (even though
On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 at 01:40:12 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 12/09/2015 02:02 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Big-O notation deals with asymptotic
behaviour as the variables approach infinity, so behaviour at
'small'
values of m and n are irrelevant.
The problem is, however,
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:30:09PM +, Charles via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 20:56:28 UTC, cym13 wrote:
> >On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 17:33:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>On 12/08/2015 12:12 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> >>>O(log(n+m)) = O(log(n)+log(m)).
> >>
On 12/09/2015 02:02 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Big-O notation deals with asymptotic
behaviour as the variables approach infinity, so behaviour at 'small'
values of m and n are irrelevant.
The problem is, however, that only m /or/ n could be small. Therefore,
formalizing this
On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 20:56:28 UTC, cym13 wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 17:33:49 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/08/2015 12:12 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
O(log(n+m)) = O(log(n)+log(m)).
Noice. Yes I did miss it. Thx!! -- Andrei
Surely I'm missing something obvious but why
On 12/08/2015 09:56 PM, cym13 wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 17:33:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/08/2015 12:12 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
O(log(n+m)) = O(log(n)+log(m)).
Noice. Yes I did miss it. Thx!! -- Andrei
Surely I'm missing something obvious but why is it true exactly?
On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 20:56:28 UTC, cym13 wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 17:33:49 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/08/2015 12:12 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
O(log(n+m)) = O(log(n)+log(m)).
Noice. Yes I did miss it. Thx!! -- Andrei
Surely I'm missing something obvious but why
On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 21:30:09 UTC, Charles wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 20:56:28 UTC, cym13 wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 17:33:49 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/08/2015 12:12 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
O(log(n+m)) = O(log(n)+log(m)).
Noice. Yes I did miss it.
On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 21:18:01 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 12/08/2015 09:56 PM, cym13 wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 17:33:49 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/08/2015 12:12 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
O(log(n+m)) = O(log(n)+log(m)).
Noice. Yes I did miss it. Thx!! -- Andrei
On 12/08/2015 10:35 PM, Charles wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 21:18:01 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 12/08/2015 09:56 PM, cym13 wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 17:33:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/08/2015 12:12 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
O(log(n+m)) = O(log(n)+log(m)).
18 matches
Mail list logo
