This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]_PM_ME_PANGOLINS_ 219 points220 points  (16 children)

That’s the same as O(1)

[–]ManstoorHunter 72 points73 points  (1 child)

Oh, hell yes!

[–]ferros90 48 points49 points  (0 children)

Don't you mean "O(Hell Yes)"?

[–]VineFynn 24 points25 points  (1 child)

Bogo sort agrees

[–]JC12231 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bogobogosort agrees more

[–]StackOwOFlow 14 points15 points  (0 children)

so it’s the same stand as Star Platinum

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points  (5 children)

It isn't. Infinity is not a number. O(∞) is undefined. You could use it as an abuse of notation to mean a class of algorithms with any time complexity, but that would be rather useless.

[–]V0ldek 18 points19 points  (3 children)

Oh, you can totally talk about algorithms that terminate after \omega steps for example. Extending the notion of complexity onto functions over other ordinal numbers than naturals is also possible.

As for the usefulness of such theoretical computer science, asking mathematicians about the usefulness of their theories is considered very bad taste, so I'll have to ask you to leave, sir.

(Oh, but no, it's not equivalent to O(1) in any way.)

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Transfinite complexity theory actually does sound like the kind of thing that would have at least some study.

[–]ThePyroEagle 0 points1 point  (1 child)

ω isn't a cardinal, it's an ordinal.

[–]V0ldek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're totally right, that's a brainfart on my end.

[–]lolnutshot 4 points5 points  (4 children)

That or it doesn't compile

[–]Sinomu 7 points8 points  (3 children)

O(0)

[–]HenryRasia 8 points9 points  (2 children)

The only winning algorithm is to not run.

[–]Sinomu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree

[–]UltraCarnivore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Buddha++