|WikiProject Computer science||(Rated Start-class)|
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. --220.127.116.11 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
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
missing smoothness assumption
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)