Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> No, it makes perfect sense as long as some input value is getting 
>> progressively larger. (Or heading towards a value that takes progressively 
>> more time or space.)  O(1) is the *output* when the *input* grows without 
>> bound. If your input grows without bound, the function isn't meaningful.
> 
>   I didn't understand that.

I'm saying O() is defined as "a function that's always bigger than *your* 
function, even as the input to your function grows without bound." If your 
input doesn't grow without bound, O() isn't well defined.

O() is defined as an asymptotic value. You can't have an asymptote of one value.

It's like asking whether you can solve the halting problem for one program I 
give you. That isn't "the halting problem", so the answer is in a completely 
different class.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message