User talk:Aleksander Stos: Difference between revisions
imported>Hendra I. Nurdin (on little o and big O) |
imported>Hendra I. Nurdin (→Big O and little o: typo) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Big O and little o== | ==Big O and little o== | ||
Hi Aleks, thanks for your tweaking of the little o and big O articles. You are right, separating the functions and sequences do make them more readable, I guess I was being | Hi Aleks, thanks for your tweaking of the little o and big O articles. You are right, separating the functions and sequences do make them more readable, I guess I was being a bit lazy :-( Just one little thing though, I intentionally avoided using the limit notation because of the pathological case where b_n and g(t) may be uniformly zero, so then it would be necessary to make conventions regarding the 0/0 quotient -- this needs to be remarked in the article. Do you know what would be a good way to get around this? I thought that with the N-epsilon argument this small complication is nicely removed (at the expense of being a bit more abstract). Also, I don't think there's much more that can possibly be added to the articles, so perhaps after adding some examples and some standard references they can be put forward for approval. Let me know what you think! Thanks. [[User:Hendra I. Nurdin|Hendra I. Nurdin]] 05:30, 10 October 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 04:32, 10 October 2007
(please add your comments below)
Portuguese language
Hello, it's me (yet again). I made an info box for the above, went back to see, and noticed that you had already removed one such. Why was this? Is there some policy concerning them that I don't know? Anyway, my one is based on the Spanish language one & is not exactly a thing of beauty... Regards, Robert Thorpe 17:44, 5 October 2007 (CDT)
- Oh, I see. Well, I think I've combined the best of the 2 boxes. It's the Big Dirtyup! Robert Thorpe 08:34, 6 October 2007 (CDT)
Big O and little o
Hi Aleks, thanks for your tweaking of the little o and big O articles. You are right, separating the functions and sequences do make them more readable, I guess I was being a bit lazy :-( Just one little thing though, I intentionally avoided using the limit notation because of the pathological case where b_n and g(t) may be uniformly zero, so then it would be necessary to make conventions regarding the 0/0 quotient -- this needs to be remarked in the article. Do you know what would be a good way to get around this? I thought that with the N-epsilon argument this small complication is nicely removed (at the expense of being a bit more abstract). Also, I don't think there's much more that can possibly be added to the articles, so perhaps after adding some examples and some standard references they can be put forward for approval. Let me know what you think! Thanks. Hendra I. Nurdin 05:30, 10 October 2007 (CDT)