Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site ccvaxa Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang Subject: Re: Efficiency of Languages (and co Message-ID: <800006@ccvaxa> Date: Fri, 8-Nov-85 11:17:00 EST Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.800006 Posted: Fri Nov 8 11:17:00 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 08:36:13 EST References: <196@opus.UUCP> Lines: 19 Nf-ID: #R:opus.UUCP:196:ccvaxa:800006:000:717 Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!preece Nov 8 10:17:00 1985 > Again, O() notation is an asymptotic measure. This makes it quite > explicit that you cannot have an "...amount of hardware...proportional > to size of the problem..." unless you consider an infinite amount of > hardware. /* Written 1:47 am Nov 4, 1985 by rcd@opus.UUCP in > ccvaxa:net.lang */ ---------- Rephrasing this, the O() notation measures the relationship between the amount of input and the amount of work that has to be done to produce the output of the algorithm. When you start talking about throwing multiple processors at the problem you are talking about how long it takes you to do that work, which is a wholly separate issue. -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece