←back to thread

688 points samwho | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.486s | source
1. dekhn ◴[] No.45019410[source]
What blows me away is that there are quantum calculations which grow as O**7 with respect to the number of atoms and scientists are fine with running them because N is small, computers get faster and more memory all the time, and the results are valuable.

(I'm not a computer science expert, so if I used the O(n) terminology differently from the standard, sorry).

replies(2): >>45020178 #>>45021948 #
2. JohnKemeny ◴[] No.45020178[source]
You can simply say grows as n⁷. Although people will understand what you mean by saying O(n⁷), O is an upper bound, not a lower bound.

What you should say if you want to be correct is it grows as Ω(n⁷).

3. wasabi991011 ◴[] No.45021948[source]
"Fine with running them" is a bit of a stretch, though the gist is correct.

There's a whole hierarchy of quantum chemistry algorithms where accuracy is traded with asymptotic runtime, I think starting at N*^3 and going all the way to N!.