Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.programming
Subject: Re: on reading ``o(1)''
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 22:14:49 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <87vaqv68qe.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <86vaqydwqx.fsf@toledo.com> <ob50hd$7hh$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ab227c206c7191e0d67e255dbc431e16"; logging-data="31497"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Abi3smQFoEFQ/GVh2XysdqRsdO8j7gKA="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bnOpUOq/3Fitg2jX6OcMrjSePTc= sha1:IhScPzZsN2iIh26MAR1I17VrHMc=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.8dde807c8709b04d76dc.20170326221449BST.87vaqv68qe.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Xref: csiph.com comp.programming:7644

Michael Forsythe <forsythe@example.com> writes:

> Daniel Bastos <dbastos@toledo.com> wrote:
>> Suppose f in o(1).  By definition, there's a natural number n(0) such
>> that for any c > 0
>> 
>>   0 <= f < c * 1 = c
>> 
>> for any n >= n(0).  (AFAIK, c is a real number.)  That seems to imply
>> that f = 0 because that's the only thing that could be less than any 
>> c > 0. 
>
> I believe there are two problems.  The first is that you are writing
> `o(1)', but the paper is using `O(1)'. The two are rather different,
> and I think you want to be talking about O(1).

The paper appears to use both, and the OP's quote from the paper has
what appears to be a very clear small o (and the paper is littered with
them).

> The second is that your definition seems to have misplaced a
> quantifier.

Not if, as I think is the case, the OP meant to define little-o(1).

<snip>
-- 
Ben.