Talk:Big O notation
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Big O notation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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.
Suppressed imprecise references in the lead
I have suppressed the two references in the lead, which were (and this is an understatement) very imprecise. The first one, while correctly reporting the first use of O by Bachmann, and its adoption by Landau in 1909, asserted it was "included in a more elaborate notation which included o(.), etc". It is true that Landau adopted the symbol O and invented the symbol o in 1909. But that's it. So the last "etc" in the author's assertion indicates only one thing: that he himself never read Landau's book. The second one asserted that both symbols (o and O) were first introduced by Bachmann in 1894. Which is false. So I replaced these references by Bachmann's and Landau's books. Sapphorain (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)