O(1)
< O(log(n))
< O(sqrt(n))
< O(n)
< O(n log(n))
< O(n²)
< O(2ⁿ)
< O(n!)

@0foldcv I don't remember ever seeing this combination of < and O. Is it supposed to mean something different than = O(...)?

@11011110 @0foldcv strict subset

@axiom @0foldcv so what you really mean is = o(...)?

· · Web · · ·

@11011110 @0foldcv no, I mean what I said

@11011110 @0foldcv (your formulation is true, and stronger, but not equivalent in meaning)

@axiom @0foldcv So according to your formulation, if $$S$$ is the set of all functions that grow proportionally to $$n$$ but with constant of proportionality greater than 1000, and $$T$$ is the larger set of linearly-growing functions with constant of proportionality greater than 100, then $$S<T<O(n)$$? Why is this a helpful variation on the existing notation?

@11011110 @0foldcv I was using existing notation. Strict subset is the natural notion of $$<$$ for sets. This isn't a variation.

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!