19 Nov
2014
19 Nov
'14
1:53 p.m.
I meant O(m log (mn)) = O(m (log m + log n)), because there are m appends,
building up from O(n) to O(mn), but it really doesn't matter because we can
easily do better.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Ross Paterson
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 01:05:13PM -0500, David Feuer wrote:
Many thanks. I don't *think* it's ever been as bad as O(mn) (I'm pretty sure it's no worse than O(m log m log n) and it may well be better),
Oh right, there are m appends, each O(log n). _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe