User talk:D. Matt Innis/Archive 8: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>D. Matt Innis
No edit summary
imported>Aleksander Stos
Line 11: Line 11:
   
   
IMHO a classical disambiguation does not apply. A better solution would be to have general "Big O notation" article (to write from scratch!) with a paragraph which describes typical use in computer science and the pointer <nowiki>{{main|complexity theory}}</nowiki> + possibly a link in the 'see also' section (just in case: what we have in the present "Big O" article looks already too long (and developing!) to be directly incorporated into the future "Big O"). --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 16:30, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
IMHO a classical disambiguation does not apply. A better solution would be to have general "Big O notation" article (to write from scratch!) with a paragraph which describes typical use in computer science and the pointer <nowiki>{{main|complexity theory}}</nowiki> + possibly a link in the 'see also' section (just in case: what we have in the present "Big O" article looks already too long (and developing!) to be directly incorporated into the future "Big O"). --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 16:30, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
:Of course I can clean it up (in the BigCleanup sense) and tweak some details if necessary. I could also start a new stub on the actual 'Big O notation'. But to really develop 'Complexity of algorithms' we would need some computer guys, of course. --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 00:48, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 05:48, 26 March 2007


Big O

Hi, good question. Actually, I've just observed that this article, as it stands, is somewhat misleading and didn't thought about a global solution. Now, I propose

  • moving "Big O notation" to "Complexity of algorithms" (would appreciate comments from computer workgroup members). Just look at "see also" section at the bottom the article - "complexity theory" is where it really belongs in.
  • deleting the resulting redirect "Big O notation". This will be something different.

The point is that the present article is not about the notation itself but about its (very) particular application. It is not a different meaning of the word nor a specific case, it is just a particular use of the same general idea. Moreover, the article does not _explain_ the subject (i.e. the title), it just _applies_it_. It gives some detailed examples of determining complexities of some algorithms -- and this seems to be the main theme there.

IMHO a classical disambiguation does not apply. A better solution would be to have general "Big O notation" article (to write from scratch!) with a paragraph which describes typical use in computer science and the pointer {{main|complexity theory}} + possibly a link in the 'see also' section (just in case: what we have in the present "Big O" article looks already too long (and developing!) to be directly incorporated into the future "Big O"). --AlekStos 16:30, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

Of course I can clean it up (in the BigCleanup sense) and tweak some details if necessary. I could also start a new stub on the actual 'Big O notation'. But to really develop 'Complexity of algorithms' we would need some computer guys, of course. --AlekStos 00:48, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:D._Matt_Innis/Archive_8&oldid=108245"