Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!cmcl2!phri!roy
From: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Why is Excel 2.2 is a magnitude (or two) slower than Excel 1.5
Message-ID: <4130@phri.UUCP>
Date: 17 Nov 89 16:32:43 GMT
References: <7940@ditmela.oz> <4016@ur-cc.UUCP> <14211@jumbo.dec.com> <7990@ditmela.oz> <32578@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1415@qip.UUCP>
Reply-To: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, NYC, NY
Lines: 18

In article <1415@qip.UUCP> shino@qip.UUCP (Rei Shinozuka) writes:
> Actually, the more normal use of the term "order of magnitude" with respect
> to computer algorithms is O(n).  If 2.2 runs 10 or even 100 times slower
> than 1.5 for an arbitrary n, it may still run in the same order of magnitude,
> with a constant of 10 or 100, respectively.

	We're going to quickly sink into a debate about semantics almost as
bad as the "how do you pronounce vi" crap the supposed unix wizards are
arguing about, but I think your usage in incorrect.  What you are
describing (linear vs. quadratic vs. exponential vs. etc.) is what I would
call just plain "order".  Once you add the "of magnitude" you are talking
about a different concept, i.e. powers of ten.  Nobody talks about, for
example, a "third order of magnitude differential equation".
-- 
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
{att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu
"The connector is the network"