Let me clarify: This wasn't intended to contradict the root-n limit. Both limits exist. * The root-n limit is based on physics of a 3d universe. * A log n lim

Let me clarify: This wasn't intended to contradict the root-n limit. Both limits exist. * The root-n limit is based on physics of a 3d universe. * A log n limit is based on computation, and would apply even in a infinite-dimensional universe, where everything is one unit away. The root-n is a stronger limiting factor, obviously, but both are helpful to know since they talk about different limits from different premises. Both disprove O(1). Both are (1) quite theoretical (2) not the limiting factor in most scenarios in practical terms (3) still apply in a limited set of cases. The log n argument is helpful, for example, for network addressing for the internet and network topologies (and issues like 32 bit versus 128 bit addresses, NAT, etc.), were distances are well above the limits of physics, and the root-n argument doesn't apply. It's also helpful to know since it also applies to storage, and not just speed. If I have twice as much storage, my pointers all get longer by a bit. (I'm intentionally omitting square root versus cube root, since that's tangential to the above, and a rabbit hole I don't want to go down right now; perhaps another post)