Re: puzzle
- From: Gerry Quinn <gerryq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:18:14 +0100
In article <1118633035.143057.281510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
spinoza1111@xxxxxxxxx says...
> Yeah, lets. For it remains the case despite your word-games, which bear
> no resemblance to my writing at all, that for n>0, n*n/2 is less than
> n*n by a number greater than the infinitesimal. Even for n=1, chump.
Irrelevant, since if you are considering constants the correct
comparison is between:
(k1)( n^2 ) and (k2)( n^ 2 / 2 )
There is no knowing how k1 compares to k2. Although it may be worth
noting that k2 contains a component related to the time taken to delete
an array element.
- Gerry Quinn
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: puzzle
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: puzzle
- References:
- puzzle
- From: Darius
- Re: puzzle
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: puzzle
- From: Arthur J. O'Dwyer
- Re: puzzle
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: puzzle
- From: pete
- Re: puzzle
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: puzzle
- From: Christopher Barber
- Re: puzzle
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: puzzle
- From: Christopher Barber
- Re: puzzle
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: puzzle
- From: spinoza1111
- puzzle
- Prev by Date: Re: Suggestions for double-hashing scheme
- Next by Date: Re: puzzle
- Previous by thread: Re: puzzle
- Next by thread: Re: puzzle
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|