Timeline for Why is it O(1) (and not, say, O(2))?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 2015 at 12:05 | comment | added | babou | $0(1)$ requires only 1 bit, while $O(C)$, for some positive constant $C$ requires requires $\log_2 C$ bits. So using the constant $1$ may save space. - - - - (sorry, I was not going to wait till April first for this comment) | |
| Feb 26, 2015 at 10:34 | history | edited | Raphael |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 24, 2015 at 12:15 | answer | added | Maxim | timeline score: 5 | |
| Sep 22, 2013 at 0:19 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackCompSci/status/381573384590864384 | ||
| Sep 19, 2013 at 17:17 | answer | added | David Richerby | timeline score: 11 | |
| Sep 19, 2013 at 13:39 | comment | added | chirlu | @Untitled: The usual definition for O notation refers to the absolute values of the functions involved. Thus, even an all-negative function isn't O(0). | |
| Sep 19, 2013 at 6:16 | answer | added | Ryan Mathews | timeline score: -1 | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 21:58 | answer | added | J.-E. Pin | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 21:16 | answer | added | arsmath | timeline score: 9 | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 20:36 | history | edited | Dan Tao | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed small formatting error
|
| Sep 18, 2013 at 19:33 | comment | added | Dan Tao | @Untitled: Ah, so I was mistaken; there is a special meaning for O(0). But the question still remains for other values besides 1. | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 18:08 | comment | added | Raphael | @Untitled I think that's an answer. | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 18:08 | history | edited | Raphael |
edited tags
|
|
| S Sep 18, 2013 at 17:44 | history | edited | Juho | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added math
|
| S Sep 18, 2013 at 17:44 | history | suggested | avi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added math
|
| Sep 18, 2013 at 17:29 | comment | added | Untitled | $O(0)$ is not the same as $O(1)$. $f(x)=O(0)$ means that there is some constant $c$, such that $f(x)<c\times 0$ for large enough $x$. That means $f(x)$ is negative when $x$ is big enough. But that's not what $O(1)$ means. | |
| Sep 18, 2013 at 17:22 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Sep 18, 2013 at 17:44 | |||||
| Sep 18, 2013 at 16:58 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 18, 2013 at 17:22 | |||||
| Sep 18, 2013 at 16:39 | history | asked | Dan Tao | CC BY-SA 3.0 |