|   |   | 
| Line 18: | Line 18: | 
|  | |} |  | |} | 
|  | 
 |  | 
 | 
|  | '''Definition''' (little o at infinity). Let <math>f : \mathbf R \to \mathbf R</math> and <math>g : \mathbf R \to \mathbf R</math> be two functions. We say that <math>f</math> is little o of <math>g</math> at infinity iff for every <math>\epsilon > 0</math> there exists <math>M</math> such that for all <math>x</math>, <math>x > M</math> implies <math>|f(x)| < \epsilon|g(x)|</math>. |  | '''Definition''' (little o at infinity). Let <math>f : \mathbf R \to \mathbf R</math> and <math>g : \mathbf R \to \mathbf R</math> be two functions. We say that <math>f</math> is little o of <math>g</math> at infinity (or equivalently <math>f(x)</math> is little of <math>g(x)</math> as <math>x \to \infty</math>) iff for every real <math>\epsilon > 0</math> there exists a real number <math>M</math> such that for all <math>x</math>, if <math>x > M</math> then <math>|f(x)| < \epsilon|g(x)|</math>. | 
|  | 
 |  | 
 | 
|  | '''Exercise'''. 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>? |  | '''Exercise'''. 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>? | 
		Revision as of 17:22, 29 November 2018
Definition
Definition (little o near a point). Let  and
 and  be two functions, and let
 be two functions, and let  . We say that
. We say that  is little o of
 is little o of  near
 near  iff for every
 iff for every  there exists
 there exists  such that
 such that  implies
 implies  . Some equivalent ways to say the same thing are:
. Some equivalent ways to say the same thing are:
| Notation | Comments | 
|  is little o of  near  | This is a point-free notation. | 
|  as  | This is in point notation, as the variable  appears in the notation. This allows us to define functions anonymously. For example, we can say  as  ; we didn't even name the functions. As the appearance of the symbol "  " suggests, in this notation we think of  as a set, namely the set of all functions that are  as  . | 
|  as  | This is in point notation. As the equality symbol suggests, in this notation we think of f as a concrete manifestation of a function that is  near  . This allows us to algebraically manipulate the expression  along with all our other expressions. | 
|  near  | This is a point-free notation. As the appearance of the symbol "  " suggests, in this notation we think of  as a set, namely the set of all functions that are  near  . In other words,   | 
|  near  | This is a point-free notation. | 
Definition (little o at infinity). Let  and
 and  be two functions. We say that
 be two functions. We say that  is little o of
 is little o of  at infinity (or equivalently
 at infinity (or equivalently  is little of
 is little of  as
 as  ) iff for every real
) iff for every real  there exists a real number
 there exists a real number  such that for all
 such that for all  , if
, if  then
 then  .
.
Exercise. Can we write just  or
 or  or
 or  or
 or  ?
?
Expand to see solution:
In general we can't because for this notation to make sense, we also need to know where the argument 

 is going. In algorithms, we have 

, but in analysis (e.g. in some definitions of differentiability) we have 

.
 
Exercise. If we are being a little pedantic, what is wrong with saying " as
 as  "?
"?
Expand to see solution:
We are saying 

, but we haven't clarified what 

 is. Instead, we are relying on the reader to assume that 

 is an argument to 

 and 

.
 
Exercise. Interpret the meaning of  .
.
Expand to see solution:
It depends on where 

 is going. We want 

 whenever 

, so this is only true when 

.
 
Properties
Proposition. Let  and
 and  be two functions, and suppose
 be two functions, and suppose  for all
 for all  . Then f is little o of g near a if and only if
. Then f is little o of g near a if and only if  .
.
Proposition. transitivity
Proposition. we can replace the  in the definition with
 in the definition with  , right?
, right?
Exercise. Let  be constants. Interpret the statement "
 be constants. Interpret the statement " as
 as  ".
".
Expand to see solution:
TODO: be careful with universal vs existential quantifiers.
The statement is saying  where
 where  is some function such that
 is some function such that  .
.
Because of the nested little o, we need to expand again and introduce  , where
, where  so
 so  .
.
Now we verify:
 
Could 

 have been arbitrary? In other words, could we have said 

 for arbitrary 

? To compute the limit 

 we actually used the limit laws, which require that the right hand limit exist. This means that we needed 

 to exist.
 
 
References
[1]
[2]