From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
To: SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>
Message Hash: 83219434a6474f888a1b31770c1dd4b13a8b5c9b104df98976f0973a80b21f45
Message ID: <9406172324.AA21372@fnord.lehman.com>
Reply To: <94Jun17.165505edt.11416@cannon.ecf.toronto.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-06-17 23:25:40 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 17 Jun 94 16:25:40 PDT
From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 94 16:25:40 PDT
To: SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>
Subject: Re: Prime magnitude and keys...a ?
In-Reply-To: <94Jun17.165505edt.11416@cannon.ecf.toronto.edu>
Message-ID: <9406172324.AA21372@fnord.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
From: SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 11:55:01 -0400
Perry and I are talking about the algormithm (If it exists) being
O(log_2(n)). That is, "log base 2 of n". This means that the
time taken is proportional to the log to the base two of the
number of keys.
Actually, for a brief moment there, I thought that Jim choate might
have a partial clue, i. e. that he was pointing out that O(log2 n) is
equivalent to O(ln n), O(log10 n), or whatever base you want.
Rick
Return to June 1994
Return to “tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)”