4 ms·
I somewhat agree, but for lack of a better word, what would you use? Quadratically doesn't have the same punch
by blharr 1y ago
I somewhat agree, but for lack of a better word, what would you use? Quadratically doesn't have the same punch
- School-Cotton 1y ago“Dramatically” ?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- remram 1y ago"a lot"
- jjmarr 1y ago"by a factor of `n`" also sounds impressive.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jrochkind1 1y agoIf you just mean "a lot" in a non-technical sense, there are plenty of words available. enormously. immensely. tremendously. remarkably. incredibly. vastly.
- bobbylarrybobby 1y ago“From quadratic to linear” seems fine.
- bobbylarrybobby 1y ago“From quadratic to linear” or “... to constant” seems fine.
- morepedantic 1y agoAlgorithmic? Big-O? Polynomially? Linear improvement? O(n^2) to O(n)? Or if you want to be less mathematically precise: enormous improvement? Using exponential in this way in any context is a faux pas, because it's highly ambiguous, and requires context for clarification. But in this situation the context clearly resolved to the mathematically accurate definition, except it was used in the other way.
- globular-toast 1y agoRuntimes dropped precipitously.
- ndriscoll 1y agoQuadratically doesn't have the same punch because it is actually exponentially less than exponentially. So doing it for extra punch (as opposed to not knowing the correct word) in a technical context would just be lying. It'd be like a paper saying they had a result with p less than one in a trillion for "extra punch" when they actually had p=0.1.