Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> writes: > On 9/1/2010 5:40 PM, John Bokma wrote:
[..] > Yes, I switched, because 'constant time' is a comprehensible claim > that can be refuted and because that is how some will interpret O(1) > (see below for proof;-). You make it now sound alsof this interpretation is not correct or out of place. People who have bothered to read ItA will use O(1) and constant time interchangeably while talking of the order of growth of the running time algorithms and most of those are aware that 'big oh' hides a constant, and that in the real world a O(log n) algorithm can outperform an O(1) algorithm for small values of n. >> Uhm, O(1) /is/ constant time, see page 45 of Introduction to Algorithms, >> 2nd edition. -- John Bokma j3b Blog: http://johnbokma.com/ Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/j.j.j.bokma Freelance Perl & Python Development: http://castleamber.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
