When dealing with Landau notation, $\Theta, O,\Omega,o,\omega$, why do some texts choose the Corman style definitions, i.e.:
$$o(g(n))=\{ f(n): \forall c>0:\exists n_0>0:\; 0\leq f(n) < cg(n): \; \forall n\geq n_0 \}$$
and some texts use limit based definitions such as:
$$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{f(n)}{g(n)}=0\Rightarrow f(n)\in o(g(n))$$
Is there any inherent advantage to one definition or the other? Or is it more a matter of the author's personal preference?
Is there any inherent advantage to one definition or the other? Or is it more a matter of the author's personal preference?
, the answer is that, yes, it is up to the author's preference which definition s/he uses. That seems almost tautological. $\endgroup$