> That's something you have to bolt on to the get the O(1) hashtable result. No, you brought that on by claiming not considering it was an error. In standard

> That's something you have to bolt on to the get the O(1) hashtable result. No, you brought that on by claiming not considering it was an error. In standard big-O you take as an assumption that memory operations are O(1), comparisons are O(1) and calculating hash values are of the same order as making a comparison (and vice versa). Once you do that, then a hash table becomes O(1) on average, as it's just a O(1) calculation followed by a O(1) memory lookup (assuming no collisions on average).