Chung-chieh Shan
O(n) which should be O(\n -> n) (a remark by Simon Thompson in The Craft of Functional Programming)
It's a neat thought, IMHO. I usually try to quantify the variables used, making the equivalent of 'let n = .. in O(n)'
And what about the equal sign in front of most uses of big-O notation?
This is a peeve of mine; I've always preferred to view O(n) etc. as sets of functions, so that a particular function can be a *member* of this set. Otherwise, you could have: f=O(n) /\ g=O(n) => f=g :-)
With some more trickery underlying the equal sign, one can state meanings such that "O(n) = O(n^2)" is true but "O(n^2) = O(n)" is false.
I would rather say that O(n) is a subset of O(n^2).
a < b < c which is a short-cut of a < b \land b < c
What's the problem with this one? -kzm -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants