Talk:Akra–Bazzi method

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer science (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Great, but someone should describe the method...
Jorge Stolfi 02:10, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

If someone could clarify "where the sub-problems have substantially different sizes," that would be great. I left it in when I edited the article because I am assuming it is meaningful.

Could you add a reference to this result? The article of Akra-Bazzi (M. Akra and L. Bazzi. On the solution of linear recurrence equations. Computational Optimization and Applications, 10:195­210, 1998.) does _not_ prove it. -- 20:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Marcus

I am puzzled by the second example on the second page of the Tom Leighton manuscript. Shouldn't it be  ? It makes no sense that the recurrence grows slower when we have the additional term g(x). EIFY (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

bi < 0.5 is assumed in Akra-Bazzi's original paper On the solution of linear recurrence equations[edit]

I have read Akra-Bazzi's original paper On the solution of linear recurrence equations. In the paper, bi < 0.5 is assumed. However, on the wiki paper of Akra-Bazzi method, bi < 1 is assumed. Is Akra-Bazzi's result right for bi < 1?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

missing smoothness assumption[edit]

The theorem cannot be correct as stated. We need an assumption that g is sufficiently smooth, so that the sum implicit in the recurrence can be adequately approximated by an integral. What is that assumption? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)