Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
To: rmoser <mlmoser@comcast.net>
cc: Hugo Mills <hugo-lkml@carfax.org.uk>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: File System conversion -- ideas
In-Reply-To: <200306291700340120.0257F7AF@smtp.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55.0306291409360.14949@bigblue.dev.mcafeelabs.com>
References: <200306291011.h5TABQXB000391@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk>
 <20030629132807.GA25170@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <3EFEEF8F.7050607@post.pl>
 <20030629192847.GB26258@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <20030629194215.GG27348@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
 <200306291545410600.02136814@smtp.comcast.net>
 <20030629200020.GH27348@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
 <200306291629450990.023BC35E@smtp.comcast.net> <20030629205003.GA4298@carfax.org.uk>
 <200306291700340120.0257F7AF@smtp.comcast.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1005
Lines: 27

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, rmoser wrote:

> >> I've beaten the O((FS_COUNT)^2) already.  And by the way, it's
> >> O((FS_COUNT)*(FS_COUNT - 1_).  There's exactly O(2*FS_COUNT)
> >> and o(2*FS_COUNT) sets of code needed total to be able to convert
> >> between any two filesystems.
> >
> >   There's no such thing as O(x*(x-1)). This is precisely O(x^2).
> >Similarly, O(2*x) is precisely the same as O(x). If you're going to
> >try to use mathematics to demonstrate your point, please at least make
> >sure that you're using it _right_.
> >
>
> Big O notation is inappropriate here because it measures time complexity;
> however, I was following Viro's lead.  We're using it to measure code
> complexity, sorry.

In which math book O() is a time thingy ?


- Davide

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/