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