Editing Talk:2861: X Value
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
Careful research has also definitively determined that the best random number is 7. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.27.95|172.68.27.95]] 20:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC) | Careful research has also definitively determined that the best random number is 7. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.27.95|172.68.27.95]] 20:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
== Big O Notation? == | == Big O Notation? == | ||
Line 60: | Line 58: | ||
I suspect the title text about n is a reference to big o notation where the function is only meaningful when n is large, but you might want to choose a function with "Bad Big-O performance" if you know in advance that n is below k (usually 2 or 3 or less than 10). | I suspect the title text about n is a reference to big o notation where the function is only meaningful when n is large, but you might want to choose a function with "Bad Big-O performance" if you know in advance that n is below k (usually 2 or 3 or less than 10). | ||
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/842242/big-o-when-the-value-of-n-gets-very-small, thus ruling that n > 8 would ensure that the Big-O growth would predict the most performant function. {{unsigned|Jh6p|21:51, 1 December 2023}} | https://stackoverflow.com/questions/842242/big-o-when-the-value-of-n-gets-very-small, thus ruling that n > 8 would ensure that the Big-O growth would predict the most performant function. {{unsigned|Jh6p|21:51, 1 December 2023}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |