4 ms·
I'd say there is nothing complex in correct mathematical definition of O() to warrant simplifying it.
by adobriyan 15y ago
I'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.