4 ms·
Here's a quote from the SciAm article: "Technically, that equation was t/log(t), but for the numbers involved log(t) is typically negligibly small." Huh?
by bluenose69 1y ago
Here's a quote from the SciAm article: "Technically, that equation was t/log(t), but for the numbers involved log(t) is typically negligibly small."
Huh?
- burnt-resistor 1y agoMaybe I'm missing context, but that sounds like O(n) or Ω(n).
- fwip 1y agot/log(t) is 'closer to' t than it is to sqrt(t) as t heads toward infinity. e.g: 4/log2(4) = 4/2 = 2 sqrt(4) = 2 2^32/log2(2^32) = 2^32/32 = 2^27 sqrt(2^32) = 2^16
- tgv 1y agoIn case someone doesn't like the proof by example, here's a hint: sqrt(t) = t / sqrt(t).
- asimpletune 1y agoI think this means that while Log grows to infinity, it does that so slowly that it can often be treated as if it were a coefficient. Coefficients are ignored in big O notation, hence the negligibly small comment.