Oh my, another handwaving article about Big O Notation. Why does everyone and their mother feel the need to explain this thing in "plain English".
"Big O notation seeks to describe the relative complexity of an algorithm [...]"
Relative to what? To the moon and the stars?
Big O is a notation to describe the growth rate of functions.
Therefore, you can also use it to describe the memory usage of an algorithm. Even if the author of the article thinks otherwise.
And so on and so forth.
Seriously, I understand the wish to explain this thing clear and simple. But what is so hard about a clear and concise description using maths and some plots?
Or, in John McCarthy's words:"He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.".
I agree with your sentiment, and I prefer the mathematical definition of Big-O to hand-wavey descriptions, but the plain English descriptions do have a place in presenting the material, in my opinion. Once you understand the idea of what Big-O is and isn't used to measure or explain, the actual definition makes sense as a translation of those ideas into math. It's like an example that goes with a theorem in a math textbook. Yes, all of the information is technically in the theorem, but that doesn't mean the example doesn't help a student understand.
"Big O notation seeks to describe the relative complexity of an algorithm [...]" Relative to what? To the moon and the stars? Big O is a notation to describe the growth rate of functions.
Therefore, you can also use it to describe the memory usage of an algorithm. Even if the author of the article thinks otherwise.
And so on and so forth.
Seriously, I understand the wish to explain this thing clear and simple. But what is so hard about a clear and concise description using maths and some plots?
Or, in John McCarthy's words:"He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.".
reply