little-oh
From: Andersen (alibandali_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 01/19/05
- Next message: bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com: "Nuisance by |-|erc who has flipped out: Re: How many flips of DIAG are on the infintie list of infinite con flippers?"
- Previous message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Next in thread: Mitch Harris: "Re: little-oh"
- Reply: Mitch Harris: "Re: little-oh"
- Reply: mareg_at_mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk: "Re: little-oh"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:58:35 +0100
Hi,
I am a computer science student. In computer science the little-oh
function is defined as (unless I am wrong):
if g(n) is in o(f(n)), then
g(n) < n1 * f(n) for all n>=n2, for two constants n1 and n2 >= 0
(reverse is true also)
I recently bumped in to the following definition for little-oh notation
in a math book (on stochastic processes) :
if g(n) is in o(f(n)) then
lim n->0 g(n)/f(n) = 0
What is the correct little-oh definition? These two seem to contradict
eachother, in the first definition x is in o(x^2) while according to
the second definition we would get x^2 is in o(x).
Please help,
Andersen
- Next message: bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com: "Nuisance by |-|erc who has flipped out: Re: How many flips of DIAG are on the infintie list of infinite con flippers?"
- Previous message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Next in thread: Mitch Harris: "Re: little-oh"
- Reply: Mitch Harris: "Re: little-oh"
- Reply: mareg_at_mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk: "Re: little-oh"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
