3 ms·
To really crank up the pedant-O-meter, wouldn't it be accurate to instead describe the output growth in point #1 as polynomial, even sub-quadratic?
by boneitis 8y ago
To really crank up the pedant-O-meter, wouldn't it be accurate to instead describe the output growth in point #1 as polynomial, even sub-quadratic?
- tempodox 8y agoThe least one could say is: The growth factor is not 1.3333, but 4/3.
- benchaney 8y agoNo. It is exponential, not polynomial. That is, it is (4/3) ^ x rather than x^(4/3).
- matharmin 8y agoThe output size is O(4/3^n), which is exponential.
- boneitis 8y agoPerhaps i can blame the booze, as i an admittedly very drunk but still unconvinced and/or confused. I asked my question coming from the angle of big-oh analysis, and all three (as of the time of this reply) responses in the thread seem to describe a growth by a constant factor of 1.3bar, bar over 3, otherwise known as polynomial growth, yes? Absolutely, the growth can be mathematically expressed with an exponent, but we verbally characterize the actual growth to be polynomial if the scalar stays constant (a.k.a. a literal number in the exponents place) rather than increasing as the amouny of input increases (independent variable lying within the actual exponent), no?
- boneitis 8y agoMan, I'm dyslexic.