▲ 4 ▼ LLMs Making Algorithms & Data Structures Obsolete (lemmy.world) submitted 3 years ago by AlmightySnoo@lemmy.world to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml 8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] darcy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) isnt O(n³) usually simplified to O(n²) anyway ? permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AlmightySnoo@lemmy.world [S] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) No, n³ cannot be O(n²) as otherwise that would mean that there exists a positive constant K and a positive threshold m such that for any integer n greater than m you would have n³ less than K*n², which would be the same as saying n less than K, which cannot hold for any integer n greater than m. So n³ cannot be an O(n²), which means that something that is an O(n³) is not necessarily an O(n²). It's the other way around, if something is an O(n²) then it is necessarily also an O(n³). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] darcy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago ok thanks permalink fedilink source parent [–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Yes. The other answer is technically correct, but yours is pragmatically correct. If a solution is worse than O(nln(n))* then most of us are going to be looking for a pragmatic and completely alternate way to deal with it, rather than analyzing how to make it mildly less terrible. So I'm just writing O(n^2) as a quick professional replacement for my original write in answer of "dogshit". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AlmightySnoo@lemmy.world [S] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) No, n³ cannot be O(n²) as otherwise that would mean that there exists a positive constant K and a positive threshold m such that for any integer n greater than m you would have n³ less than K*n², which would be the same as saying n less than K, which cannot hold for any integer n greater than m. So n³ cannot be an O(n²), which means that something that is an O(n³) is not necessarily an O(n²). It's the other way around, if something is an O(n²) then it is necessarily also an O(n³). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] darcy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago ok thanks permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Yes. The other answer is technically correct, but yours is pragmatically correct. If a solution is worse than O(nln(n))* then most of us are going to be looking for a pragmatic and completely alternate way to deal with it, rather than analyzing how to make it mildly less terrible. So I'm just writing O(n^2) as a quick professional replacement for my original write in answer of "dogshit". permalink fedilink source parent