

Simple explanation for Big-0 - ebbu
http://www.javacodegeeks.com/2011/04/simple-big-o-notation-post.html

======
spacemanaki
This is a much better simple explanation: <http://stackoverflow.com/a/487278>

The OP is pretty thin on content. Also is "linear logarithmic" really the
correct way to refer to O(n log n) ? I don't think I've ever heard that
before.

Also, some of those examples definitely don't compile, due to capitalization
mistakes (integer vs. Integer etc) which makes me suspicious that they've even
been tested.

~~~
adobriyan
I'd say there is nothing complex in correct mathematical definition of O() to
warrant simplifying it.

~~~
kbolino
I agree, if your goal is to teach rigorous proof techniques. However, if your
goal is to _introduce_ the topic to someone, this[1] is a much better way of
going about it.

This is what separates the great math teachers from the mediocre ones; anyone
can "teach" the definition, but only a handful are able to truly own the topic
and introduce it in a simple and straightforward manner.

[1] <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/487258>

------
willvarfar
I think the table is the meaningful thing; but it ought to use named numbers
like "10 quadrillion" instead of 10^16

~~~
arethuza
I'd far rather read "10^16" rather than "10 quadrillion"

------
derleth
Is it that difficult to tell the difference between the capital letter O and
the digit 0?

