5 ms·
This is a much better simple explanation: http://stackoverflow.com/a/487278 http://stackoverflow.com/a/487278 The OP is pretty thin on content. Also is "linear
by spacemanaki 15y ago
This is a much better simple explanation: http://stackoverflow.com/a/487278 http://stackoverflow.com/a/487278
The OP is pretty thin on content. Also is "linear logarithmic" really the correct way to refer to O(n log n) ? I don't think I've ever heard that before.
Also, some of those examples definitely don't compile, due to capitalization mistakes (integer vs. Integer etc) which makes me suspicious that they've even been tested.
- archangel_one 15y agoNor have I. I've heard "superlinear" in some cases, but normally just "n log n". I think I might misinterpret "linear logarithmic" as "linear or logarithmic" as if they weren't sure which it'd be.
- adobriyan 15y agoI'd say there is nothing complex in correct mathematical definition of O() to warrant simplifying it.
- kbolino 15y agoI agree, if your goal is to teach rigorous proof techniques. However, if your goal is to introduce the topic to someone, this[1] is a much better way of going about it. This is what separates the great math teachers from the mediocre ones; anyone can "teach" the definition, but only a handful are able to truly own the topic and introduce it in a simple and straightforward manner. [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/487258 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/487258
- spacemanaki 15y agoI mostly agree, but there's nothing wrong with trying to explain the underlying concepts in prose without simply jumping straight to the formal mathematical definition. This blog post doesn't even try, really.