Talk:Big O notation
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Big O notation article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
Algorithms and their Big O performance
I'd like to put in some mention of computer algorithms and their Big O performance: selection sort being N^2, merge sort N log N, travelling salesman, and so on, and implications for computing (faster computers don't compensate for big-O differences, etc). Think this should be part of this write-up, or separate but linked?
- I think separate would be better, to increase the article count :-). Then you can have links from the Complexity, Computation and Computer Science pages. Maybe you can call it "Algorithm run times" or something like that. --AxelBoldt
- Or something like analysis of algorithms or Algorithmic Efficiency since you may sometimes choose based on other factors as well. --loh
- I'd recommend puting it under computational complexity which earlier I made into a redirect to complexity theory. It should be a page of it's own, but I didn't want to write it ;-) --BlckKnght
Reinstated my VERY bad. Missed a bracket
The article refers to terms "tight" and "tighter", but these terms are never defined! Alas, other pages (e.g. "bin packing") refer to this page as the one giving a formal definition of this term; moreover, "Asymptotically tight bound" redirects here. Yes, the term is intuitively clear, but a math-related page should have clear definitions.
I think a short section giving a formal definition of the term "tight bound" and referring to Theta-notation is needed (e.g. as a subsection of section "8. Related asymptotic notations"), and once such a section is created the redirection from "Asymptotically tight bound" should link directly there.
- It should be "f(x)=O(g(x)))". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
MIT Lecture notes source cites Wikipedia
The source "Big O Notation (MIT Lecture)" references Wikipedia. It seems the citation refers to only a small part of the material in the lecture notes. This is, of course, a Bad Thing, but the source seems otherwise sound. Is it ok to keep?
Reorganise the article
The article is hard to read, sorry. Too much information, many duplications. I suggest at least moving a part of the section 6.4 "multiple usage", the properties of non-symmetry of the notation to the properties of the notation, since this seems to be an important property under the given non-symmetric definition. Sources lacking. Fixed a mathematical mistake. --Yaroslav Nikitenko (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)