Search Results

Search found 857 results on 35 pages for 'scientific notation'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 2/35 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Scientific Plotting in Python

    - by user100046
    I have a large data set of tuples containing (time of event, latitude, longitude) that I need to visualize. I was hoping to generate a 'movie'-like xy-plot, but was wondering if anyone has a better idea or if there is an easy way to do this in Python? Thanks in advance for the help, --Leo

    Read the article

  • little oh notation as the limit of n goes to infinity

    - by Tony
    Hi all, I'm just trying to understand how in little o notation this is true: f(n)/g(n) as n goes to infinity = infinity? Can someone explain that to me? I do get the idea that f(n) = o(g(n)) means that f(n) grows no faster then cg(n) for all constants c 0. I just don't get the bit in bold above.

    Read the article

  • Automatically check for Security Updates on CentOS or Scientific Linux?

    - by Stefan Lasiewski
    We have machines running RedHat-based distros such as CentOS or Scientific Linux. We want the systems to automatically notify us if there are any known vulnerabilities to the installed packages. FreeBSD does this with the ports-mgmt/portaudit port. RedHat provides yum-plugin-security, which can check for vulnerabilities by their Bugzilla ID, CVE ID or advisory ID. In addition, Fedora recently started to support yum-plugin-security. I believe this was added in Fedora 16. Scientific Linux 6 did not support yum-plugin-security as of late 2011. It does ship with /etc/cron.daily/yum-autoupdate, which updates RPMs daily. I don't think this handles Security Updates only, however. CentOS does not support yum-plugin-security. I monitor the CentOS and Scientific Linux mailinglists for updates, but this is tedious and I want something which can be automated. For those of us who maintain CentOS and SL systems, are there any tools which can: Automatically (Progamatically, via cron) inform us if there are known vulnerabilities with my current RPMs. Optionally, automatically install the minimum upgrade required to address a security vulnerability, which would probably be yum update-minimal --security on the commandline? I have considered using yum-plugin-changelog to print out the changelog for each package, and then parse the output for certain strings. Are there any tools which do this already?

    Read the article

  • big O notation algorithm

    - by niggersak
    Use big-O notation to classify the traditional grade school algorithms for addition and multiplication. That is, if asked to add two numbers each having N digits, how many individual additions must be performed? If asked to multiply two N-digit numbers, how many individual multiplications are required? . Suppose f is a function that returns the result of reversing the string of symbols given as its input, and g is a function that returns the concatenation of the two strings given as its input. If x is the string hrwa, what is returned by g(f(x),x)? Explain your answer - don't just provide the result!

    Read the article

  • Known "Z notation" applications ?

    - by Amadeus45
    I was just remembering back my university classes and was wondering to know if anyone out here even used the "Z notation" in a professional environment. I honestly must say that it was the single most boring class that I have ever attended in my life. Maybe because of the teacher, but at the time we really all thought it was a big waste of time. I might have been wrong, which is why I'd like to hear you about it. If you are using it or some derived language (Z++), I'd just like to know how is it useful for you. Just curious to know some commonly-known applications of Z or your application. For those who are not familiar : http://staff.washington.edu/jon/z/z-examples.html

    Read the article

  • Your thoughts on Best Practices for Scientific Computing?

    - by John Smith
    A recent paper by Wilson et al (2014) pointed out 24 Best Practices for scientific programming. It's worth to have a look. I would like to hear opinions about these points from experienced programmers in scientific data analysis. Do you think these advices are helpful and practical? Or are they good only in an ideal world? Wilson G, Aruliah DA, Brown CT, Chue Hong NP, Davis M, Guy RT, Haddock SHD, Huff KD, Mitchell IM, Plumbley MD, Waugh B, White EP, Wilson P (2014) Best Practices for Scientific Computing. PLoS Biol 12:e1001745. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001745 Box 1. Summary of Best Practices Write programs for people, not computers. (a) A program should not require its readers to hold more than a handful of facts in memory at once. (b) Make names consistent, distinctive, and meaningful. (c) Make code style and formatting consistent. Let the computer do the work. (a) Make the computer repeat tasks. (b) Save recent commands in a file for re-use. (c) Use a build tool to automate workflows. Make incremental changes. (a) Work in small steps with frequent feedback and course correction. (b) Use a version control system. (c) Put everything that has been created manually in version control. Don’t repeat yourself (or others). (a) Every piece of data must have a single authoritative representation in the system. (b) Modularize code rather than copying and pasting. (c) Re-use code instead of rewriting it. Plan for mistakes. (a) Add assertions to programs to check their operation. (b) Use an off-the-shelf unit testing library. (c) Turn bugs into test cases. (d) Use a symbolic debugger. Optimize software only after it works correctly. (a) Use a profiler to identify bottlenecks. (b) Write code in the highest-level language possible. Document design and purpose, not mechanics. (a) Document interfaces and reasons, not implementations. (b) Refactor code in preference to explaining how it works. (c) Embed the documentation for a piece of software in that software. Collaborate. (a) Use pre-merge code reviews. (b) Use pair programming when bringing someone new up to speed and when tackling particularly tricky problems. (c) Use an issue tracking tool. I'm relatively new to serious programming for scientific data analysis. When I tried to write code for pilot analyses of some of my data last year, I encountered tremendous amount of bugs both in my code and data. Bugs and errors had been around me all the time, but this time it was somewhat overwhelming. I managed to crunch the numbers at last, but I thought I couldn't put up with this mess any longer. Some actions must be taken. Without a sophisticated guide like the article above, I started to adopt "defensive style" of programming since then. A book titled "The Art of Readable Code" helped me a lot. I deployed meticulous input validations or assertions for every function, renamed a lot of variables and functions for better readability, and extracted many subroutines as reusable functions. Recently, I introduced Git and SourceTree for version control. At the moment, because my co-workers are much more reluctant about these issues, the collaboration practices (8a,b,c) have not been introduced. Actually, as the authors admitted, because all of these practices take some amount of time and effort to introduce, it may be generally hard to persuade your reluctant collaborators to comply them. I think I'm asking your opinions because I still suffer from many bugs despite all my effort on many of these practices. Bug fix may be, or should be, faster than before, but I couldn't really measure the improvement. Moreover, much of my time has been invested on defence, meaning that I haven't actually done much data analysis (offence) these days. Where is the point I should stop at in terms of productivity? I've already deployed: 1a,b,c, 2a, 3a,b,c, 4b,c, 5a,d, 6a,b, 7a,7b I'm about to have a go at: 5b,c Not yet: 2b,c, 4a, 7c, 8a,b,c (I could not really see the advantage of using GNU make (2c) for my purpose. Could anyone tell me how it helps my work with MATLAB?)

    Read the article

  • Compact matlab matrix indexing notation

    - by AnnaR
    I've got an nxk sized matrix, containing k numbers per row. I want to use these k number as indexes to k-dimensional matrix. Is there any compact way of doing so in matlab or must I use a for-loop? This is what I want to do (in matlab-pseudo code), but in a more matlabish way. for row=1:1:n finalTable(row) = kDimensionalMatrix(indexmatrix(row, 1),... indexmatrix(row, 2),...,indexmatrix(row, k)) end

    Read the article

  • Which system modelling notation for showing interconnections and internal logical structures?

    - by user1043838
    I am trying to model a collection of systems, their various interconnections, as well as their internal logical structures, as a message is passed through them, initiated by an actor. I have been using BPMN 2.0 notation with Yaoqiang Editor. However I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, or even using the right notation. System example Is this correct, if not, can you recommend an alternate notation or method of displaying the systems? Thanks for all suggestions

    Read the article

  • Is there an existing algorithm for this notation translation/conversion?

    - by John
    A system has a notation that would require writing an expression like (A+B)*C as #MUL(#ADD(A,B),C). Is there already an algorithm to do this kind of notation conversion so users can enter in a more conventional way? In other words an algorithm to convert from infix - my notation. First issue is I don't know an exact name for my notation... it's similar to reverse-polish but not quite. Every operator is encoded as a function taking arguments.

    Read the article

  • Programmaticaly finding the Landau notation (Big O or Theta notation) of an algorithm?

    - by Julien L
    I'm used to search for the Landau (Big O, Theta...) notation of my algorithms by hand to make sure they are as optimized as they can be, but when the functions are getting really big and complex, it's taking way too much time to do it by hand. it's also prone to human errors. I spent some time on Codility (coding/algo exercises), and noticed they will give you the Landau notation for your submitted solution (both in Time and Memory usage). I was wondering how they do that... How would you do it? Is there another way besides Lexical Analysis or parsing of the code? PS: This question concerns mainly PHP and or JavaScript, but I'm opened to any language and theory.

    Read the article

  • Music Notation Editor - Refactoring view creation logic elsewhere

    - by Cyril Silverman
    Let me preface by saying that knowing some elementary music theory and music notation may be helpful in grasping the problem at hand. I'm currently building a Music Notation and Tablature Editor (in Javascript). But I've come to a point where the core parts of the program are more or less there. All functionality I plan to add at this point will really build off the foundation that I've created. As a result, I want to refactor to really solidify my code. I'm using an API called VexFlow to render notation. Basically I pass the parts of the editor's state to VexFlow to build the graphical representation of the score. Here is a rough and stripped down UML diagram showing you the outline of my program: In essence, a Part has many Measures which has many Notes which has many NoteItems (yes, this is semantically weird, as a chord is represented as a Note with multiple NoteItems, individual pitches or fret positions). All of the relationships are bi-directional. There are a few problems with my design because my Measure class contains the majority of the entire application view logic. The class holds the data about all VexFlow objects (the graphical representation of the score). It contains the graphical Staff object and the graphical notes. (Shouldn't these be placed somewhere else in the program?) While VexFlowFactory deals with actual creation (and some processing) of most of the VexFlow objects, Measure still "directs" the creation of all the objects and what order they are supposed to be created in for both the VexFlowStaff and VexFlowNotes. I'm not looking for a specific answer as you'd need a much deeper understanding of my code. Just a general direction to go in. Here's a thought I had, create an MeasureView/NoteView/PartView classes that contains the basic VexFlow objects for each class in addition to any extraneous logic for it's creation? but where would these views be contained? Do I create a ScoreView that is a parallel graphical representation of everything? So that ScoreView.render() would cascade down PartView and call render for each PartView and casade down into each MeasureView, etc. Again, I just have no idea what direction to go in. The more I think about it, the more ways to go seem to pop into my head. I tried to be as concise and simplistic as possible while still getting my problem across. Please feel free to ask me any questions if anything is unclear. It's quite a struggle trying to dumb down a complicated problem to its core parts.

    Read the article

  • Music Notation Editor - Refactoring view creation logic elseware

    - by Cyril Silverman
    Let me preface by saying that knowing some elementary music theory and music notation may be helpful in grasping the problem at hand. I'm currently building a Music Notation and Tablature Editor (in Javascript). But I've come to a point where the core parts of the program are more or less there. All functionality I plan to add at this point will really build off the foundation that I've created. As a result, I want to refactor to really solidify my code. I'm using an API called VexFlow to render notation. Basically I pass the parts of the editor's state to VexFlow to build the graphical representation of the score. Here is a rough and stripped down UML diagram showing you the outline of my program: In essence, a Part has many Measures which has many Notes which has many NoteItems (yes, this is semantically weird, as a chord is represented as a Note with multiple NoteItems, individual pitches or fret positions). All of the relationships are bi-directional. There are a few problems with my design because my Measure class contains the majority of the entire application view logic. The class holds the data about all VexFlow objects (the graphical representation of the score). It contains the graphical Staff object and the graphical notes. (Shouldn't these be placed somewhere else in the program?) While VexFlowFactory deals with actual creation (and some processing) of most of the VexFlow objects, Measure still "directs" the creation of all the objects and what order they are supposed to be created in for both the VexFlowStaff and VexFlowNotes. I'm not looking for a specific answer as you'd need a much deeper understanding of my code. Just a general direction to go in. Here's a thought I had, create an MeasureView/NoteView/PartView classes that contains the basic VexFlow objects for each class in addition to any extraneous logic for it's creation? but where would these views be contained? Do I create a ScoreView that is a parallel graphical representation of everything? So that ScoreView.render() would cascade down PartView and call render for each PartView and casade down into each MeasureView, etc. Again, I just have no idea what direction to go in. The more I think about it, the more ways to go seem to pop into my head. I tried to be as concise and simplistic as possible while still getting my problem across. Please feel free to ask me any questions if anything is unclear. It's quite a struggle trying to dumb down a complicated problem to its core parts.

    Read the article

  • Languages/Methods to Learn for Scientific Computing?:

    - by Zéychin
    I'm a second-semester Junior working towards a Computer Science degree with a Scientific Computing concentration and a Mathematics degree with a concentration on Applied Discrete Mathematics. So, number crunching and such rather than a bunch of regular expressions, interface design, and networking. I've found that I'm not learning new relevant languages from my coursework and am interested in what the community would recommend me to learn. I know as far as programming methods go, I need to learn more about parallelizing programs, but if there's anything else you can recommend, I would appreciate it. Here's a list of the languages with which I am very experienced (web technologies omitted as they barely apply here). Any recommendations for additional languages I should learn would be very much appreciated!: Java C C++ Fortran77/90/95 Haskell Python MATLAB

    Read the article

  • Flow-Design Cheat Sheet &ndash; Part I, Notation

    - by Ralf Westphal
    You want to avoid the pitfalls of object oriented design? Then this is the right place to start. Use Flow-Oriented Analysis (FOA) and –Design (FOD or just FD for Flow-Design) to understand a problem domain and design a software solution. Flow-Orientation as described here is related to Flow-Based Programming, Event-Based Programming, Business Process Modelling, and even Event-Driven Architectures. But even though “thinking in flows” is not new, I found it helpful to deviate from those precursors for several reasons. Some aim at too big systems for the average programmer, some are concerned with only asynchronous processing, some are even not very much concerned with programming at all. What I was looking for was a design method to help in software projects of any size, be they large or tiny, involing synchronous or asynchronous processing, being local or distributed, running on the web or on the desktop or on a smartphone. That´s why I took ideas from all of the above sources and some additional and came up with Event-Based Components which later got repositioned and renamed to Flow-Design. In the meantime this has generated some discussion (in the German developer community) and several teams have started to work with Flow-Design. Also I´ve conducted quite some trainings using Flow-Orientation for design. The results are very promising. Developers find it much easier to design software using Flow-Orientation than OOAD-based object orientation. Since Flow-Orientation is moving fast and is not covered completely by a single source like a book, demand has increased for at least an overview of the current state of its notation. This page is trying to answer this demand by briefly introducing/describing every notational element as well as their translation into C# source code. Take this as a cheat sheet to put next to your whiteboard when designing software. However, please do not expect any explanation as to the reasons behind Flow-Design elements. Details on why Flow-Design at all and why in this specific way you´ll find in the literature covering the topic. Here´s a resource page on Flow-Design/Event-Based Components, if you´re able to read German. Notation Connected Functional Units The basic element of any FOD are functional units (FU): Think of FUs as some kind of software code block processing data. For the moment forget about classes, methods, “components”, assemblies or whatever. See a FU as an abstract piece of code. Software then consists of just collaborating FUs. I´m using circles/ellipses to draw FUs. But if you like, use rectangles. Whatever suites your whiteboard needs best.   The purpose of FUs is to process input and produce output. FUs are transformational. However, FUs are not called and do not call other FUs. There is no dependency between FUs. Data just flows into a FU (input) and out of it (output). From where and where to is of no concern to a FU.   This way FUs can be concatenated in arbitrary ways:   Each FU can accept input from many sources and produce output for many sinks:   Flows Connected FUs form a flow with a start and an end. Data is entering a flow at a source, and it´s leaving it through a sink. Think of sources and sinks as special FUs which conntect wires to the environment of a network of FUs.   Wiring Details Data is flowing into/out of FUs through wires. This is to allude to electrical engineering which since long has been working with composable parts. Wires are attached to FUs usings pins. They are the entry/exit points for the data flowing along the wires. Input-/output pins currently need not be drawn explicitly. This is to keep designing on a whiteboard simple and quick.   Data flowing is of some type, so wires have a type attached to them. And pins have names. If there is only one input pin and output pin on a FU, though, you don´t need to mention them. The default is Process for a single input pin, and Result for a single output pin. But you´re free to give even single pins different names.   There is a shortcut in use to address a certain pin on a destination FU:   The type of the wire is put in parantheses for two reasons. 1. This way a “no-type” wire can be easily denoted, 2. this is a natural way to describe tuples of data.   To describe how much data is flowing, a star can be put next to the wire type:   Nesting – Boards and Parts If more than 5 to 10 FUs need to be put in a flow a FD starts to become hard to understand. To keep diagrams clutter free they can be nested. You can turn any FU into a flow: This leads to Flow-Designs with different levels of abstraction. A in the above illustration is a high level functional unit, A.1 and A.2 are lower level functional units. One of the purposes of Flow-Design is to be able to describe systems on different levels of abstraction and thus make it easier to understand them. Humans use abstraction/decomposition to get a grip on complexity. Flow-Design strives to support this and make levels of abstraction first class citizens for programming. You can read the above illustration like this: Functional units A.1 and A.2 detail what A is supposed to do. The whole of A´s responsibility is decomposed into smaller responsibilities A.1 and A.2. FU A thus does not do anything itself anymore! All A is responsible for is actually accomplished by the collaboration between A.1 and A.2. Since A now is not doing anything anymore except containing A.1 and A.2 functional units are devided into two categories: boards and parts. Boards are just containing other functional units; their sole responsibility is to wire them up. A is a board. Boards thus depend on the functional units nested within them. This dependency is not of a functional nature, though. Boards are not dependent on services provided by nested functional units. They are just concerned with their interface to be able to plug them together. Parts are the workhorses of flows. They contain the real domain logic. They actually transform input into output. However, they do not depend on other functional units. Please note the usage of source and sink in boards. They correspond to input-pins and output-pins of the board.   Implicit Dependencies Nesting functional units leads to a dependency tree. Boards depend on nested functional units, they are the inner nodes of the tree. Parts are independent, they are the leafs: Even though dependencies are the bane of software development, Flow-Design does not usually draw these dependencies. They are implicitly created by visually nesting functional units. And they are harmless. Boards are so simple in their functionality, they are little affected by changes in functional units they are depending on. But functional units are implicitly dependent on more than nested functional units. They are also dependent on the data types of the wires attached to them: This is also natural and thus does not need to be made explicit. And it pertains mainly to parts being dependent. Since boards don´t do anything with regard to a problem domain, they don´t care much about data types. Their infrastructural purpose just needs types of input/output-pins to match.   Explicit Dependencies You could say, Flow-Orientation is about tackling complexity at its root cause: that´s dependencies. “Natural” dependencies are depicted naturally, i.e. implicitly. And whereever possible dependencies are not even created. Functional units don´t know their collaborators within a flow. This is core to Flow-Orientation. That makes for high composability of functional units. A part is as independent of other functional units as a motor is from the rest of the car. And a board is as dependend on nested functional units as a motor is on a spark plug or a crank shaft. With Flow-Design software development moves closer to how hardware is constructed. Implicit dependencies are not enough, though. Sometimes explicit dependencies make designs easier – as counterintuitive this might sound. So FD notation needs a ways to denote explicit dependencies: Data flows along wires. But data does not flow along dependency relations. Instead dependency relations represent service calls. Functional unit C is depending on/calling services on functional unit S. If you want to be more specific, name the services next to the dependency relation: Although you should try to stay clear of explicit dependencies, they are fundamentally ok. See them as a way to add another dimension to a flow. Usually the functionality of the independent FU (“Customer repository” above) is orthogonal to the domain of the flow it is referenced by. If you like emphasize this by using different shapes for dependent and independent FUs like above. Such dependencies can be used to link in resources like databases or shared in-memory state. FUs can not only produce output but also can have side effects. A common pattern for using such explizit dependencies is to hook a GUI into a flow as the source and/or the sink of data: Which can be shortened to: Treat FUs others depend on as boards (with a special non-FD API the dependent part is connected to), but do not embed them in a flow in the diagram they are depended upon.   Attributes of Functional Units Creation and usage of functional units can be modified with attributes. So far the following have shown to be helpful: Singleton: FUs are by default multitons. FUs in the same of different flows with the same name refer to the same functionality, but to different instances. Think of functional units as objects that get instanciated anew whereever they appear in a design. Sometimes though it´s helpful to reuse the same instance of a functional unit; this is always due to valuable state it holds. Signify this by annotating the FU with a “(S)”. Multiton: FUs on which others depend are singletons by default. This is, because they usually are introduced where shared state comes into play. If you want to change them to be a singletons mark them with a “(M)”. Configurable: Some parts need to be configured before the can do they work in a flow. Annotate them with a “(C)” to have them initialized before any data items to be processed by them arrive. Do not assume any order in which FUs are configured. How such configuration is happening is an implementation detail. Entry point: In each design there needs to be a single part where “it all starts”. That´s the entry point for all processing. It´s like Program.Main() in C# programs. Mark the entry point part with an “(E)”. Quite often this will be the GUI part. How the entry point is started is an implementation detail. Just consider it the first FU to start do its job.   Patterns / Standard Parts If more than a single wire is attached to an output-pin that´s called a split (or fork). The same data is flowing on all of the wires. Remember: Flow-Designs are synchronous by default. So a split does not mean data is processed in parallel afterwards. Processing still happens synchronously and thus one branch after another. Do not assume any specific order of the processing on the different branches after the split.   It is common to do a split and let only parts of the original data flow on through the branches. This effectively means a map is needed after a split. This map can be implicit or explicit.   Although FUs can have multiple input-pins it is preferrable in most cases to combine input data from different branches using an explicit join: The default output of a join is a tuple of its input values. The default behavior of a join is to output a value whenever a new input is received. However, to produce its first output a join needs an input for all its input-pins. Other join behaviors can be: reset all inputs after an output only produce output if data arrives on certain input-pins

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between JSON and Object Literal Notation?

    - by burak ozdogan
    Hi, Can someone tell me what is the main difference between a Javascript object defined by using "Object Literal Notation" and JSON object? According to a Javascript book it says this is an object defined by using Object Notation: var newObject = { prop1 : true, showMessage : function (msg) {alert(msg)} }; Why it is not a JSON object in this case? Just because it is not defined by using quotation marks? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Understanding dot notation

    - by Starkers
    Here's my interpretation of dot notation: a = [2,6] b = [1,4] c = [0,8] a . b . c = (2*6)+(1*4)+(0*8) = 12 + 4 + 0 = 16 What is the significance of 16? Apparently it's a scalar. Am I right in thinking that a scalar is the number we times a unit vector by to get a vector that has a scaled up magnitude but the same direction as the unit vector? So again, what is the relevance of 16? When is it used? It's not the magnitude of all the vectors added up. The magnitude of all of them is calculated as follows: sqrt( ax * ax + ay * ay ) + sqrt( bx * bx + by * by ) + sqrt( cx * cx + cy * cy) sqrt( 2 * 2 + 6 * 6 ) + sqrt( 1 * 1 + 4 * 4 ) + sqrt( 0 * 0 + 8 * 8) sqrt( 4 + 36 ) + sqrt( 1 + 16 ) + sqrt( 0 + 64) sqrt( 40 ) + sqrt( 17 ) + sqrt( 64) 6.3 + 4.1 + 8 10.4 + 8 18.4 So I don't really get this diagram: Attempting with sensible numbers: a = [1,0] b = [4,3] a . b = (1*0) + (4*3) = 0 + 12 = 12 So what exactly is a . b describing here? The magnitude of that vector? Because that isn't right: the 'a.b' vector = [4,0] sqrt( x*x + y*y ) sqrt( 4*4 + 0*0 ) sqrt( 16 + 0 ) 4 So what is 12 describing?

    Read the article

  • Style: Dot notation vs. message notation in Objective-C 2.0

    - by groundhog
    In Objective-C 2.0 we got the "dot" notation for properties. I've seen various back and forths about the merits of dot notation vs. message notation. To keep the responses untainted I'm not going to respond either way in the question. What is your thought about dot notation vs. message notation for property accessing? Please try to keep it focused on Objective-C - my one bias I'll put forth is that Objective-C is Objective-C, so your preference that it be like Java or JavaScript aren't valid. Valid commentary is to do with technical issues (operation ordering, cast precedence, performance, etc), clarity (structure vs. object nature, both pro and con!), succinctness, etc. Note, I'm of the school of rigorous quality and readability in code having worked on huge projects where code convention and quality is paramount (the write once read a thousand times paradigm).

    Read the article

  • Why do programmers write n=O(n^2)?

    - by Jaakko Seppälä
    I studied algorithms in a book Cormen & al. "Introduction to algorithms". In the fourth printing, on the page 43 defines O(g(n))={f(n):there exists positive constants c and n_0 s.t. 0<=f(n)<=cg(n) for all n=n_0} I reported this as a bug in the book www-site because this leads to notation like n=O(n^2) and suggested alternative given in http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=296&t=31517&start=20 . It looks like my bug report has not been accepted. Why the programmers won't renew the notation?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >