←back to thread

A visual introduction to big O notation

(samwho.dev)
688 points samwho | 7 comments | 24 Aug 25 07:39 UTC | HN request time: 0.409s | source | bottom
Show context
fracus ◴[25 Aug 25 20:02 UTC] No.45018314[source]▶
Having gone through electrical engineering, I always felt that Big O notation was never properly explained unless I happened to miss every time it was introduced. It always felt like it was just hand waived as something we should already know. I'm curious what level of math or computer science is usually responsible for introducing it.
replies(7): >>45018615 #>>45018641 #>>45019080 #>>45020045 #>>45021112 #>>45027527 #>>45029029 #
leni536 ◴[25 Aug 25 20:33 UTC] No.45018641[source]▶
A function f(x) is said to be O(g(x)) if f(x)/g(x) is bounded, that is there is some C so that for every x, f(x)/g(x) < C .

In computer science f(x) is often some complexity function, like number of some specific operations when running an algorithm to completion.

replies(2): >>45020166 #>>45020570 #
1. mvdtnz ◴[25 Aug 25 22:56 UTC] No.45020166[source]▶
What an asshole way of explaining it. For practical purposes (don't @ me if this is technically wrong, I don't give a shit) it's a description of how the cost of an algorithm grows with the size of the input. For example if the cost doubles every time the input increments then it's O(n^2). If the cost increases in step with the input size then it's O(n). Simples.
replies(4): >>45020348 #>>45020521 #>>45021650 #>>45023105 #
2. lern_too_spel ◴[25 Aug 25 23:15 UTC] No.45020348[source]▶
If the cost doubles for each increment in the input size, it's O(2^n).
replies(1): >>45020563 #
3. tauroid ◴[25 Aug 25 23:36 UTC] No.45020521[source]▶
Okay unless you're doing numerical analysis where they use it for the growth rate of the error term, which has nothing to do with cost or algorithms
4. mvdtnz ◴[25 Aug 25 23:42 UTC] No.45020563[source]▶
Right you are, my bad.
5. badosu ◴[26 Aug 25 02:30 UTC] No.45021650[source]▶
I don't have a computer science education, but I had a math one. I found it a great explanation, but I understand why others would feel it's not.

It definitely is not an "asshole" way of explaining it though.

6. xigoi ◴[26 Aug 25 06:46 UTC] No.45023105[source]▶
This is not only “technically” wrong, but completely wrong. O-notation has absolutely nothing to do with algorithms.
replies(1): >>45023329 #
7. writebetterc ◴[26 Aug 25 07:22 UTC] No.45023329[source]▶
Let's not over correct, of course O-notation has something do with algorithms for the working programmer.