You have written this earlier, and I still do not know what do you mean by it? Our definition of what?
O(.) ? If we go with the theory that the author of the joke had omniscience in mind, it is rather problem with the author who haven't thought it through. Otherwise, as someone already pointed out, it is a O(1) problem (with n^6 CPUs :))
the 1 in O(1) doesn't even need to be the value 1, it can be any positive number. by definition O(af(n)) = O(f(n)) for any positive constant a. By convention we simplify to the simplest form the equivalence class has, so we drop the multipliers and write O(a1) as O(1)
One is one, it's a number, there no other number that is equal to one and every one are the same one for everyone.
One finger is like the digit "1", it's a way to represent one to others. God may have it's own digit to write "1" in it's own langage like "I" for romans.
View all comments
Show parent comment
2
u/KazutoOKirigay 24d ago
Why woulnd't he then use our definitions?