User:IssaRice/Little o notation: Difference between revisions

From Machinelearning
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 27: Line 27:


{{collapsible solution|We are saying <math>x \to a</math>, but we haven't clarified what <math>x</math> is. Instead, we are relying on the reader to assume that <math>x</math> is an argument to <math>f</math> and <math>g</math>.}}
{{collapsible solution|We are saying <math>x \to a</math>, but we haven't clarified what <math>x</math> is. Instead, we are relying on the reader to assume that <math>x</math> is an argument to <math>f</math> and <math>g</math>.}}
'''Exercise'''. Interpret the meaning of <math>x^2 \in o(x)</math>.
{{collapsible solution|It depends on where <math>x</math> is going. We want <math>|x^2| < \epsilon |x|</math> whenever <math>|x-a|<\delta</math>, so this is only true when <math>a = 0</math>.}}


==Properties==
==Properties==

Revision as of 03:21, 27 November 2018

Definition

Definition (little o near a point). Let f:RR and g:RR be two functions, and let aR. We say that f is little o of g near a iff for every ϵ>0 there exists δ>0 such that |xa|<δ implies |f(x)|<ϵ|g(x)|. Some equivalent ways to say the same thing are:

Notation Comments
f is little o of g near a
f(x)o(g(x)) as xa In this notation, we think of o(g(x)) as a set.
f(x)=o(g(x)) as xa
fo(g) near a
f=o(g) near a

Definition (little o at infinity). Let f:RR and g:RR be two functions. We say that f is little o of g at infinity iff for every ϵ>0 there exists M such that for all x, x>M implies |f(x)|<ϵ|g(x)|.

Exercise. Can we write just fo(g) or f=o(g) or f(x)o(g(x)) or f(x)=o(g(x))?

Expand to see solution:

In general we can't because for this notation to make sense, we also need to know where the argument x is going. In algorithms, we have x, but in analysis (e.g. in some definitions of differentiability) we have x0.

Exercise. If we are being a little pedantic, what is wrong with saying "fo(g) as xa"?

Expand to see solution:

We are saying xa, but we haven't clarified what x is. Instead, we are relying on the reader to assume that x is an argument to f and g.

Exercise. Interpret the meaning of x2o(x).

Expand to see solution:

It depends on where x is going. We want |x2|<ϵ|x| whenever |xa|<δ, so this is only true when a=0.

Properties

Proposition. Let f:RR and g:RR be two functions, and suppose g(x)0 for all xR. Then f is little o of g near a if and only if limxaf(x)g(x)=0.

Proposition. transitivity

Proposition. we can replace the < in the definition with , right?

References

[1]

[2]