@platypii and I obtained a Lean proof of the same improvement for DFT over prime-order finite fields (yielding polynomial multiplication via the convolution theorem): https://github.com/platypii/integer-mult-bounds-lean/blob/ma...
this does not feel like a healthy place to be
flebron•57m ago
onionisafruit•53m ago
theokrueger•48m ago
O(2n+1) = O(2n) = O(n)
o(2n+1) > o(2n) > o(n)
Both define upper boundary, but big O can read like "the function is generally proportional to ___" and little o can read like "the function is never more than _____"
bobmarleybiceps•35m ago
Big O is sort of like <=. little o is sort of like <.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1008328.1008329
npinsker•27m ago
O(n) is: "there exists a K such that, for sufficiently large n, K*n is always larger".
o(n) is: "for every K, for sufficiently large n, K*n is always larger". (So o(2n+1) and o(2n) and o(n) are the same thing.)
boothby•48m ago
appplication•44m ago
If you were joking then maybe you got me
boothby•26m ago
adgjlsfhk1•18m ago
This isn't quite correct. O(g) doesn't require the limit to exist.
Ygg2•45m ago
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1364444/difference-betwe...
ruined•41m ago
f(n) = o(g(n)) means as n increases, f(n)/g(n) must shrink
jhanschoo•18m ago
s/must shrink/must eventually shrink, after finitely many n/
Equivalently, must go to zero in the limit.
bobmarleybiceps•30m ago
craigcitro•49m ago
ComplexSystems•35m ago