User:IssaRice/Little o notation: Difference between revisions

From Machinelearning
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:
Can we write just <math>f \in o(g)</math> or <math>f = o(g)</math> or <math>f(x) \in o(g(x))</math> or <math>f(x) = o(g(x))</math>?
Can we write just <math>f \in o(g)</math> or <math>f = o(g)</math> or <math>f(x) \in o(g(x))</math> or <math>f(x) = o(g(x))</math>?


<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="overflow: auto;"> In general we can't because for this notation to make sense, we also need to know where the argument <math>x</math> is going. In algorithms, we have <math>x \to \infty</math>, but in analysis (e.g. in some definitions of differentiability) we have <math>x \to 0</math>.</div>
{{Collapsiblesolution|In general we can't because for this notation to make sense, we also need to know where the argument <math>x</math> is going. In algorithms, we have <math>x \to \infty</math>, but in analysis (e.g. in some definitions of differentiability) we have <math>x \to 0</math>.}}

Revision as of 02:43, 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)|.

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)|.


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.