User:IssaRice/Little o notation: Difference between revisions

From Machinelearning
No edit summary
Line 39: Line 39:


'''Proposition'''. we can replace the <math><</math> in the definition with <math>\leq</math>, right?
'''Proposition'''. we can replace the <math><</math> in the definition with <math>\leq</math>, right?
'''Exercise'''. Let <math>c, x_0 \in \mathbf R</math> be constants. Interpret the statement "<math>o(c(x-x_0) + o(x-x_0)) \in o(x-x_0)</math> as <math>x \to x_0</math>".


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 16:24, 29 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?

Exercise. Let c,x0R be constants. Interpret the statement "o(c(xx0)+o(xx0))o(xx0) as xx0".

References

[1]

[2]