Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.sys.mac.programmer.help,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!cam-news-feed3.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.pbi.net!cbgw3.lucent.com!nntphub.cb.lucent.com!alice!allegra!akalice!ark
From: ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Subject: Re: Mergesort: why's it efficient?
Message-ID: <E221BD.9xM@research.att.com>
Organization: AT&T Research, Murray Hill NJ
References: <6MIHn7irJaB@09.viking.ruhr.com> <01bbe2fb$c692d1c0$c761e426@DCorbit.solutionsiq.com> <3058824781104480@naggum.no>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:45:13 GMT
Lines: 22
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:232472 comp.sys.mac.programmer.help:44741 comp.lang.lisp:24099

In article <3058824781104480@naggum.no> Erik Naggum <nobody@naggum.no> writes:

> since Andrew Koenig surprised many by limiting n and then arguing how
> insignificant log n is compared to n, as if this is anything but obvious,
> others have followed in his muddled footsteps and also conveniently forget
> the constant factor or the actual meaning of the O notation.  I'm frankly
> amazed that this is possible for even half-educated computer scientists.

Notation is usually defined by usage and implicit understanding.
When a complexity theorist uses O notation in formal writing, that
means something slightly different from what the practical programmers
I've seen mean when they use it in informal conversation.

For example, I understand that, formally speaking, if I can describe
f(n) as O(n), I can also describe it as O(n^2).  However, that property
of the notation is not terribly useful in the context of my previous posting.

I don't think that anyone who wants to understand what I was saying
will have the slightest difficulty doing so.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@research.att.com
