Timeline for Why is it O(1) (and not, say, O(2))?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 19, 2013 at 17:26 | comment | added | David Richerby | No, no, no. Do not write "$O(k)$" when you mean $O(1)$. If you write "$O(k)$" to mean "bounded by a constant" in a context where $k$ already has a meaning, you've written the wrong thing: "A $k$-connected graph has at most $O(k)$ widgets" means something very different from "A $k$-connected graph has at most $O(1)$ widgets." If you write "$O(k)$" in a context where $k$ doesn't have a meaning, your reader's reaction will be "What on earth is $k$?" | |
| Sep 19, 2013 at 8:26 | history | edited | Juho | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2013 at 6:16 | history | answered | Ryan Mathews | CC BY-SA 3.0 |