1994-06-17 - Re: Prime magnitude and keys…a ?

Header Data

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

Raw message

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.