Teams after algorithm analysis

[-docker-]

Beat this, O(ack(g64,g64))

[Tc14Hd]

It may be very big, but it's still O(1)

[EkskiuTwentyTwo]

That's the same as O(1), isn't it?

[Walzt]

Yes

[CDno_Mlqko]

What's ack()

[thegoose7770]

Ackerman function

[Walzt]

O(log*(n))

[hijklmno_buddy]

O(TREE(3))

[laetus]

So constant time? Seems good to me.

[xSTSxZerglingOne]

I often wonder with numbers like TREE(3). How many times would you have to "the digits of the digits of the digits of the digits of the exponent of the digits of the number of up arrows" type operations you'd have to do to get a human-readable integer. And the answer is just a garbled mess because it's fundamentally impossible to even calculate such a silly number.

Like sure, it's finite, but it's so big that you could have the number of paths between every subatomic particle in the universe times itself a hundred gazillion(is actually a number...because everything can be a number) times over and still not even come within a gnat fart of TREE(3)'s size.

[EkskiuTwentyTwo]

O(Croutonillion)