Re: little-oh
bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com
Date: 01/19/05
- Next message: bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com: "Nuisance by |-|erc who has flipped out: Re: How many flips of DIAG are on the infintie list of infinite con flippers?"
- Previous message: mensanator_at_aol.compost: "Re: Factoring problem, solved"
- In reply to: Andersen: "little-oh"
- Next in thread: Robert Israel: "Re: little-oh"
- Reply: Robert Israel: "Re: little-oh"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 18 Jan 2005 23:05:00 -0800
Andersen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am a computer science student. In computer science the little-oh
> function is defined as (unless I am wrong):
> if g(n) is in o(f(n)), then
> g(n) < n1 * f(n) for all n>=n2, for two constants n1 and n2 >= 0
>
i always thought that this is big-Oh instead of little-oh.
>
> I recently bumped in to the following definition for little-oh
notation
> in a math book (on stochastic processes) :
> if g(n) is in o(f(n)) then
> lim n->0 g(n)/f(n) = 0
>
and this is what i always thought of as little-oh...
- Next message: bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com: "Nuisance by |-|erc who has flipped out: Re: How many flips of DIAG are on the infintie list of infinite con flippers?"
- Previous message: mensanator_at_aol.compost: "Re: Factoring problem, solved"
- In reply to: Andersen: "little-oh"
- Next in thread: Robert Israel: "Re: little-oh"
- Reply: Robert Israel: "Re: little-oh"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
