Re: puzzle



pete wrote:
> spinoza1111@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > You're doing O(n) searches, times a linearly shrinking array, only in
> > the worst case. N/2 the time on average it finds U. This doesn't
> > transform order n^2 because it divides by a constant and not N but it
> > is none the less a significant reduction.
>
> Whatever O(n * n / 2) could possibley mean
> is what O(n * n) actually means.
> Constant factors aren't part of big O notation.

Of course not. But, n*n/2 != n*n for positive n: n*n/2 < n*2 for n>0.

The resentment here is of ability to explain, complementary to the
inability to read shown by O'Dwyer who read a claim for O(n) when I
said "close to". This resentment then morphed into the usual anhedonic
personal attacks by people who don't belong here, because they use this
newsgroup, having been, it seems, excluded from moderated groups in
particular and polite circles in general by virtue of their anger
management problems, to vent their hurt.

This explains the 80% failure rate of enterprise systems development
because mathematics as such is undoable in such an environment. It's
reduced to vulgar tricks.

If n gets too-large, dividing it by 2 is too large. But in a realistic
scenario this is useful.
>
> --
> pete

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: puzzle
    ... N/2 the time on average it finds U. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: puzzle
    ... > pete wrote: ... is further away from Othan a O) algorithm would be. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (comp.programming)