Apart from the obvious "It's faster when there are many elements". When is it more appropriate to use a simple sorting algorithm (0(N^2)) compared to an advanced one (O(N log N))?
I've read quite a bit about for example insertion sort being preferred when you've got a small array that's nearly sorted because you get the best case N. Why is it not good to use quicksort for example, when you've got say 20 elements. Not just insertion or quick but rather when and why is a more simple algorithm useful compared to an advanced?
EDIT: If we're working with for example an array, does it matter which data input we have? Such as objects or primitive types (Integer).
The big-oh notation captures the runtime cost of the algorithm for large values of N. It is less effective at measuring the runtime of the algorithm for small values.
The actual transition from one algorithm to another is not a trivial thing. For large N, the effects of N really dominate. For small numbers, more complex effects become very important. For example, some algorithms have better cache coherency. Others are best when you know something about the data (like your example of insertion sort when the data is nearly sorted).
The balance also changes over time. In the past, CPU speeds and memory speeds were closer together. Cache coherency issues were less of an issue. In modern times, CPU speeds have generally left memory busses behind, so cache coherency is more important.
So there's no one clear cut and dry answer to when you should use one algorithm over another. The only reliable answer is to profile your code and see.
For amusement: I was looking at the dynamic disjoint forest problem a few years back. I came across a state-of-the-art paper that permitted some operations to be done in something silly like O(log log N / log^4N). They did some truly brilliant math to get there, but there was a catch. The operations were so expensive that, for my graphs of 50-100 nodes, it was far slower than the O(n log n) solution that I eventually used. The paper's solution was far more important for people operating on graphs of 500,000+ nodes.
When programming sorting algorithms, you have to take into account how much work would be put into implementing the actual algorithm vs the actual speed of it. For big O, the time to implement advanced algorithms would be outweighed by the decreased time taken to sort. For small O, such as 20-100 items, the difference is minimal, so taking a simpler route is much better.
First of all O-Notation gives you the sense of the worst case scenario. So in case the array is nearly sorted the execution time could be near to linear time so it would be better than quick sort for example.
In case the n is small enough, we do take into consideration other aspects. Algorithms such as Quick-sort can be slower because of all the recursions called. At that point it depends on how the OS handles the recursions which can end up being slower than the simple arithmetic operations required in the insertion-sort. And not to mention the additional memory space required for recursive algorithms.
Better than 99% of the time, you should not be implementing a sorting algorithm at all.
Instead use a standard sorting algorithm from your language's standard library. In one line of code you get to use a tested and optimized implementation which is O(n log(n)). It likely implements tricks you wouldn't have thought of.
For external sorts, I've used the Unix sort utility from time to time. Aside from the non-intuitive LC_ALL=C environment variable that I need to get it to behave, it is very useful.
Any other cases where you actually need to implement your own sorting algorithm, what you implement will be driven by your precise needs. I've had to deal with this exactly once for production code in two decades of programming. (That was because for a complex series of reasons, I needed to be sorting compressed data on a machine which literally did not have enough disk space to store said data uncompressed. I used a merge sort.)
How would the run time of algorithms differ in various programming languages? For example, assuming that an algorithm's run time is stated as Θ(n2) , would it differ in any way if it were ran in Haskell, Java, C, etc.?
EDIT: My question has been answered, but I would still like additional input if you guys have the time to spare. My professor is letting us do our own programming project for the quarter and this was an idea I came up with and I just want to make sure that there's enough for me to discuss. I am having second thoughts on this so if anyone else would like to suggest an idea(s) or modify/build upon this one, I'd greatly appreciate it.
The time complexity of an algorithm is heavily tied to the specific way in which it's implemented. For example, Dijkstra's algorithm will run in time O(m + n log n) if you use a Fibonacci heap, takes time O(m log n) if you use a binary heap, and takes time O(n2) if you use an array-based priority queue.
I mention this because if you say that a particular algorithm runs in time Θ(n2), you're saying that the algorithm, when implemented with specific data structures in a specific way, will run in time Θ(n2). Provided that you can faithfully implement the appropriate data structures and other basic operations in the programming language of your choice, the runtime will then be Θ(n2). The constant factors might vary greatly based on the particular language and the particular way in which that Θ(n2) algorithm is translated into the language, but there's no fundamental reason that an algorithm in C should run asymptotically faster than the same algorithm in Java, provided that it can also be represented in Java.
That said, certain programming languages might not support, or at least efficiently support, certain operations. Purely functional Haskell code, ignoring various monadic tricks, doesn't support variable assignment and mutation, so many algorithms that run very quickly in an imperative model won't work efficiently in Haskell. There's been a lot of research into purely functional algorithms and data structures, and there's a result (IIRC) that says that any imperative algorithm can be converted into a functional algorithm that has a slowdown of O(log n). In some cases, there's no slowdown at all (for example, in purely functional binomial heaps or red/black trees). If you look at Haskell and then allow for state using monadic tricks, then to the best of my knowledge there's no slowdown because the underlying implementation can optimize the code directly into an imperative equivalent.
As another example, single-threaded programming languages might not be able to implement parallel algorithms, so even if the parallel algorithm runs in, say, time Θ(f(n)), the best you might be able to do in a language without threads might be ω(f(n)). Languages that don't support bit manipulations (if they exist) might not be able to take advantage of certain bit-hacky tricks that shave O(log n) factors off of certain types of algorithms.
You sometimes do in practice see a slowdown when implementing algorithms in different programming languages because there are subtle differences between how those programming languages implement certain structures. For example, if you're not used to C++, it's easy to inadvertently have a lot of objects passed by value rather than by pointer or reference, adding in an extra cost due to the cost of copying objects. If you don't already know that the std::map implementation is usually some balanced BST, you might end up introducing an extra O(log n) factor due to lookup costs. That said, this is less about the specific language than it is about the specific implementation within that language.
Hope this helps!
In the section that explains Dijkstra's Algorithm in the book Introduction to Algorithms by Cormen et. al., while analysing the complexity of the algorithm, they say
If the graph is sufficiently sparse ... we can improve the algorithm by implementing the min priority queue with a binary min heap
So I was wondering, what is the need for such a statement? Isn't it always wiser to just use heaps for priority queues?
There are many different ways to implement a priority queue. A binary min heap is useful because it performs reasonably well and is easy to implement. But a pairing heap is pretty easy to implement, too, and it has better performance for some operations. In particular, it does a decrease key operation much more quickly than a binary heap does.
Or you could go with a skip list priority queue. A skip list has some nice properties that make it attractive in some priority queue applications. In particular, it's easier to make a concurrent skip list than a concurrent heap.
So, no, it's not always wiser to use heaps for priority queues. It's almost certainly wiser to use a heap than a sorted list, but there are times when something else is more appropriate than a heap.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijkstra%27s_algorithm
It says:
Dijkstra's original algorithm does not use a min-priority queue and runs in O(|V|^2).
So the statement in the book is just saying that the original algorithm can be optimized.
The implementation based on a min-priority queue implemented by a Fibonacci heap and running in O(|E|+|V|log|V|) (where |E| is the number of edges) is due to (Fredman & Tarjan 1984).
Binary heap is only one type of heap. There are other types which fit specific scenes better.
I know that most programming languages are Turing complete, but I wonder whether a problem can be resolved with an algorithm of the same complexity with any programming language (and in particular with any programming paradigm).
To make my answer more explicit with an example: is there any problem which can be resolved with an imperative algorithm of complexity x (say O(n)), but cannot be resolved by a functional algorithm with the same complexity (or vice versa)?
Edit: The algorithm itself can be different. The question is about the complexity of solving the problem -- using any approach available in the language.
In general, no, not all algorithms can be implemented with the same order of complexity in all languages. This can be trivially proven, for instance, with a hypothetical language that disallows O(1) access to an array. However, there aren't any algorithms (to my knowledge) that cannot be implemented with the optimal order of complexity in a functional language. The complexity analysis of an algorithm's pseudocode makes certain assumptions about what operations are legal, and what operations are O(1). If you break one of those assumptions, you can alter the complexity of the algorithm's implementation even though the language is Turing complete. Turing-completeness makes no guarantees regarding the complexity of any operation.
An algorithm has a measured runtime such as O(n) like you said, implementations of an algorithm must adhere to that same runtime or they do not implement the algorithm. The language or implementation does not by definition change the algorithm and thus does not change the asymptotic runtime.
That said certain languages and technologies might make expressing the algorithm easier and offer constant speedups (or slowdowns) due to how the language gets compiled or executed.
I think your first paragraph is wrong. And I think your edit doesn't change that.
Assuming you are requiring that the observed behaviour of an implementation conforms to the time complexity of the algorithm, then...
When calculating the complexity of an algorithm assumptions are made about what operations are constant time. These assumptions are where you're going to find your clues.
Some of the more common assumptions are things like constant time array access, function calls, and arithmetic operations.
If you cannot provide those operations in a language in constant time you cannot reproduce the algorithm in a way that preserves the time complexity.
Reasonable languages can break those assumptions, and sometimes have to if they want to deal with, say, immutable data structures with shared state, concurrency, etc.
For example, Clojure uses trees to represent Vectors. This means that access is not constant time (I think it's log32 of the size of the array, but that's not constant even though it might as well be).
You can easily imagine a language having to do complicated stuff at runtime when calling a function. For example, deciding which one was meant.
Once upon a time floating point and multi-word integer multiplication and division were sadly not constant time (they were implemented in software). There was a period during which languages transitioned to using hardware when very reasonable language implementations behaved very differently.
I'm also pretty sure you can come up with algorithms that fare very poorly in the world of immutable data structures. I've seen some optimisation algorithms that would be horribly difficult, maybe impossible or effectively so, to implement while dealing immutability without breaking the time complexity.
For what it's worth, there are algorithms out there that assume set union and intersection are constant time... good luck implementing those algorithms in constant time. There are also algorithms that use an 'oracle' that can answer questions in constant time... good luck with those too.
I think that a language can have different basilar operations that cost O(1), for example mathematical operations (+, -, *, /), or variable/array access (a[i]), function call and everything you can think.
If a language do not have one of this O(1) operations (as brain bending that do not have O(1) array access) it can not do everything C can do with same complexity, but if a language have more O(1) operations (for example a language with O(1) array search) it can do more than C.
I think that all "serious" language have the same basilar O(1) operations, so they can resolve problem with same complexity.
If you consider Brainfuck or the Turing machine itself, there is one fundamental operation, that takes O(n) time there, although in most other languages it can be done in O(1) – indexing an array.
I'm not completely sure about this, but I think you can't have true array in functional programming either (having O(1) “get element at position” and O(1) “set element at position”). Because of immutability, you can either have a structure that can change quickly, but accessing it takes time or you will have to copy large parts of the structure on every change to get fast access. But I guess you could cheat around that using monads.
Looking at things like functional versus imperative, I doubt you'll find any real differences.
Looking at individual languages and implementations is a different story though. Ignoring, for the moment, the examples from Brainfuck and such, there are still some pretty decent examples to find.
I still remember one example from many years ago, writing APL (on a mainframe). The task was to find (and eliminate) duplicates in a sorted array of numbers. At the time, most of the programming I'd done was in Fortran, with a few bits and pieces in Pascal (still the latest and greatest thing at the time) or BASIC. I did what seemed obvious: wrote a loop that stepped through the array, comparing array[i] to array[i+1], and keeping track of a couple of indexes, copying each unique element back the appropriate number of places, depending on how many elements had already been eliminated.
While this would have worked quite well in the languages to which I was accustomed, it was barely short of a disaster in APL. The solution that worked a lot better was based more on what was easy in APL than computational complexity. Specifically, what you did was compare the first element of the array with the first element of the array after it had been "rotated" by one element. Then, you either kept the array as it was, or eliminated the last element. Repeat that until you'd gone through the whole array (as I recall, detected when the first element was smaller than the first element in the rotated array).
The difference was fairly simple: like most APL implementations (at least at the time), this one was a pure interpreter. A single operation (even one that was pretty complex) was generally pretty fast, but interpreting the input file took quite a bit of time. The improved version was much shorter and faster to interpret (e.g., APL provides the "rotate the array" thing as a single, primitive operation so that was only a character or two to interpret instead of a loop).
What are some examples where Big-O notation[1] fails in practice?
That is to say: when will the Big-O running time of algorithms predict algorithm A to be faster than algorithm B, yet in practice algorithm B is faster when you run it?
Slightly broader: when do theoretical predictions about algorithm performance mismatch observed running times? A non-Big-O prediction might be based on the average/expected number of rotations in a search tree, or the number of comparisons in a sorting algorithm, expressed as a factor times the number of elements.
Clarification:
Despite what some of the answers say, the Big-O notation is meant to predict algorithm performance. That said, it's a flawed tool: it only speaks about asymptotic performance, and it blurs out the constant factors. It does this for a reason: it's meant to predict algorithmic performance independent of which computer you execute the algorithm on.
What I want to know is this: when do the flaws of this tool show themselves? I've found Big-O notation to be reasonably useful, but far from perfect. What are the pitfalls, the edge cases, the gotchas?
An example of what I'm looking for: running Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm with a Fibonacci heap instead of a binary heap, you get O(m + n log n) time versus O((m+n) log n), for n vertices and m edges. You'd expect a speed increase from the Fibonacci heap sooner or later, yet said speed increase never materialized in my experiments.
(Experimental evidence, without proof, suggests that binary heaps operating on uniformly random edge weights spend O(1) time rather than O(log n) time; that's one big gotcha for the experiments. Another one that's a bitch to count is the expected number of calls to DecreaseKey).
[1] Really it isn't the notation that fails, but the concepts the notation stands for, and the theoretical approach to predicting algorithm performance. </anti-pedantry>
On the accepted answer:
I've accepted an answer to highlight the kind of answers I was hoping for. Many different answers which are just as good exist :) What I like about the answer is that it suggests a general rule for when Big-O notation "fails" (when cache misses dominate execution time) which might also increase understanding (in some sense I'm not sure how to best express ATM).
It fails in exactly one case: When people try to use it for something it's not meant for.
It tells you how an algorithm scales. It does not tell you how fast it is.
Big-O notation doesn't tell you which algorithm will be faster in any specific case. It only tells you that for sufficiently large input, one will be faster than the other.
When N is small, the constant factor dominates. Looking up an item in an array of five items is probably faster than looking it up in a hash table.
Short answer: When n is small. The Traveling Salesman Problem is quickly solved when you only have three destinations (however, finding the smallest number in a list of a trillion elements can last a while, although this is O(n). )
the canonical example is Quicksort, which has a worst time of O(n^2), while Heapsort's is O(n logn). in practice however, Quicksort is usually faster then Heapsort. why? two reasons:
each iteration in Quicksort is a lot simpler than Heapsort. Even more, it's easily optimized by simple cache strategies.
the worst case is very hard to hit.
But IMHO, this doesn't mean 'big O fails' in any way. the first factor (iteration time) is easy to incorporate into your estimates. after all, big O numbers should be multiplied by this almost-constant facto.
the second factor melts away if you get the amortized figures instead of average. They can be harder to estimate, but tell a more complete story
One area where Big O fails is memory access patterns. Big O only counts operations that need to be performed - it can't keep track if an algorithm results in more cache misses or data that needs to be paged in from disk. For small N, these effects will typically dominate. For instance, a linear search through an array of 100 integers will probably beat out a search through a binary tree of 100 integers due to memory accesses, even though the binary tree will most likely require fewer operations. Each tree node would result in a cache miss, whereas the linear search would mostly hit the cache for each lookup.
Big-O describes the efficiency/complexity of the algorithm and not necessarily the running time of the implementation of a given block of code. This doesn't mean Big-O fails. It just means that it's not meant to predict running time.
Check out the answer to this question for a great definition of Big-O.
For most algorithms there is an "average case" and a "worst case". If your data routinely falls into the "worst case" scenario, it is possible that another algorithm, while theoretically less efficient in the average case, might prove more efficient for your data.
Some algorithms also have best cases that your data can take advantage of. For example, some sorting algorithms have a terrible theoretical efficiency, but are actually very fast if the data is already sorted (or nearly so). Another algorithm, while theoretically faster in the general case, may not take advantage of the fact that the data is already sorted and in practice perform worse.
For very small data sets sometimes an algorithm that has a better theoretical efficiency may actually be less efficient because of a large "k" value.
One example (that I'm not an expert on) is that simplex algorithms for linear programming have exponential worst-case complexity on arbitrary inputs, even though they perform well in practice. An interesting solution to this is considering "smoothed complexity", which blends worst-case and average-case performance by looking at small random perturbations of arbitrary inputs.
Spielman and Teng (2004) were able to show that the shadow-vertex simplex algorithm has polynomial smoothed complexity.
Big O does not say e.g. that algorithm A runs faster than algorithm B. It can say that the time or space used by algorithm A grows at a different rate than algorithm B, when the input grows. However, for any specific input size, big O notation does not say anything about the performance of one algorithm relative to another.
For example, A may be slower per operation, but have a better big-O than B. B is more performant for smaller input, but if the data size increases, there will be some cut-off point where A becomes faster. Big-O in itself does not say anything about where that cut-off point is.
The general answer is that Big-O allows you to be really sloppy by hiding the constant factors. As mentioned in the question, the use of Fibonacci Heaps is one example. Fibonacci Heaps do have great asymptotic runtimes, but in practice the constants factors are way too large to be useful for the sizes of data sets encountered in real life.
Fibonacci Heaps are often used in proving a good lower bound for asymptotic complexity of graph-related algorithms.
Another similar example is the Coppersmith-Winograd algorithm for matrix multiplication. It is currently the algorithm with the fastest known asymptotic running time for matrix multiplication, O(n2.376). However, its constant factor is far too large to be useful in practice. Like Fibonacci Heaps, it's frequently used as a building block in other algorithms to prove theoretical time bounds.
This somewhat depends on what the Big-O is measuring - when it's worst case scenarios, it will usually "fail" in that the runtime performance will be much better than the Big-O suggests. If it's average case, then it may be much worse.
Big-O notation typically "fails" if the input data to the algorithm has some prior information. Often, the Big-O notation refers to the worst case complexity - which will often happen if the data is either completely random or completely non-random.
As an example, if you feed data to an algorithm that's profiled and the big-o is based on randomized data, but your data has a very well-defined structure, your result times may be much faster than expected. On the same token, if you're measuring average complexity, and you feed data that is horribly randomized, the algorithm may perform much worse than expected.
Small N - And for todays computers, 100 is likely too small to worry.
Hidden Multipliers - IE merge vs quick sort.
Pathological Cases - Again, merge vs quick
One broad area where Big-Oh notation fails is when the amount of data exceeds the available amount of RAM.
Using sorting as an example, the amount of time it takes to sort is not dominated by the number of comparisons or swaps (of which there are O(n log n) and O(n), respectively, in the optimal case). The amount of time is dominated by the number of disk operations: block writes and block reads.
To better analyze algorithms which handle data in excess of available RAM, the I/O-model was born, where you count the number of disk reads. In that, you consider three parameters:
The number of elements, N;
The amount of memory (RAM), M (the number of elements that can be in memory); and
The size of a disk block, B (the number of elements per block).
Notably absent is the amount of disk space; this is treated as if it were infinite. A typical extra assumption is that M > B2.
Continuing the sorting example, you typically favor merge sort in the I/O case: divide the elements into chunks of size θ(M) and sort them in memory (with, say, quicksort). Then, merge θ(M/B) of them by reading the first block from each chunk into memory, stuff all the elements into a heap, and repeatedly pick the smallest element until you have picked B of them. Write this new merge block out and continue. If you ever deplete one of the blocks you read into memory, read a new block from the same chunk and put it into the heap.
(All expressions should be read as being big θ). You form N/M sorted chunks which you then merge. You merge log (base M/B) of N/M times; each time you read and write all the N/B blocks, so it takes you N/B * (log base M/B of N/M) time.
You can analyze in-memory sorting algorithms (suitably modified to include block reads and block writes) and see that they're much less efficient than the merge sort I've presented.
This knowledge is courtesy of my I/O-algorithms course, by Arge and Brodal (http://daimi.au.dk/~large/ioS08/); I also conducted experiments which validate the theory: heap sort takes "almost infinite" time once you exceed memory. Quick sort becomes unbearably slow, merge sort barely bearably slow, I/O-efficient merge sort performs well (the best of the bunch).
I've seen a few cases where, as the data set grew, the algorithmic complexity became less important than the memory access pattern. Navigating a large data structure with a smart algorithm can, in some cases, cause far more page faults or cache misses, than an algorithm with a worse big-O.
For small n, two algorithms may be comparable. As n increases, the smarter algorithm outperforms. But, at some point, n grows big enough that the system succumbs to memory pressure, in which case the "worse" algorithm may actually perform better because the constants are essentially reset.
This isn't particularly interesting, though. By the time you reach this inversion point, the performance of both algorithms is usually unacceptable, and you have to find a new algorithm that has a friendlier memory access pattern AND a better big-O complexity.
This question is like asking, "When does a person's IQ fail in practice?" It's clear that having a high IQ does not mean you'll be successful in life and having a low IQ does not mean you'll perish. Yet, we measure IQ as a means of assessing potential, even if its not an absolute.
In algorithms, the Big-Oh notation gives you the algorithm's IQ. It doesn't necessarily mean that the algorithm will perform best for your particular situation, but there's some mathematical basis that says this algorithm has some good potential. If Big-Oh notation were enough to measure performance you would see a lot more of it and less runtime testing.
Think of Big-Oh as a range instead of a specific measure of better-or-worse. There's best case scenarios and worst case scenarios and a huge set of scenarios in between. Choose your algorithms by how well they fit within the Big-Oh range, but don't rely on the notation as an absolute for measuring performance.
When your data doesn't fit the model, big-o notation will still work, but you're going to see an overlap from best and worst case scenarios.
Also, some operations are tuned for linear data access vs. random data access, so one algorithm while superior in terms of cycles, might be doggedly slow if the method of calling it changes from design. Similarly, if an algorithm causes page/cache misses due to the way it access memory, Big-O isn't going to going to give an accurate estimate of the cost of running a process.
Apparently, as I've forgotten, also when N is small :)
The short answer: always on modern hardware when you start using a lot of memory. The textbooks assume memory access is uniform, and it is no longer. You can of course do Big O analysis for a non-uniform access model, but that is somewhat more complex.
The small n cases are obvious but not interesting: fast enough is fast enough.
In practice I've had problems using the standard collections in Delphi, Java, C# and Smalltalk with a few million objects. And with smaller ones where the dominant factor proved to be the hash function or the compare
Robert Sedgewick talks about shortcomings of the big-O notation in his Coursera course on Analysis of Algorithms. He calls particularly egregious examples galactic algorithms because while they may have a better complexity class than their predecessors, it would take inputs of astronomical sizes for it to show in practice.
https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rs/talks/AlgsMasses.pdf
Big O and its brothers are used to compare asymptotic mathematical function growth. I would like to emphasize on the mathematical part. Its entirely about being able reduce your problem to a function where the input grows a.k.a scales. It gives you a nice plot where your input (x axis) related to the number of operations performed(y-axis). This is purely based on the mathematical function and as such requires us to accurately model the algorithm used into a polynomial of sorts. Then the assumption of scaling.
Big O immediately loses its relevance when the data is finite, fixed and constant size. Which is why nearly all embedded programmers don't even bother with big O. Mathematically this will always come out to O(1) but we know that we need to optimize our code for space and Mhz timing budget at a level that big O simply doesn't work. This is optimization is on the same order where the individual components matter due to their direct performance dependence on the system.
Big O's other failure is in its assumption that hardware differences do not matter. A CPU that has a MAC, MMU and/or a bit shift low latency math operations will outperform some tasks which may be falsely identified as higher order in the asymptotic notation. This is simply because of the limitation of the model itself.
Another common case where big O becomes absolutely irrelevant is where we falsely identify the nature of the problem to be solved and end up with a binary tree when in reality the solution is actually a state machine. The entire algorithm regimen often overlooks finite state machine problems. This is because a state machine complexity grows based on the number of states and not the number of inputs or data which in most cases are constant.
The other aspect here is the memory access itself which is an extension of the problem of being disconnected from hardware and execution environment. Many times the memory optimization gives performance optimization and vice-versa. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. These relations cannot be easily modeled into simple polynomials. A theoretically bad algorithm running on heap (region of memory not algorithm heap) data will usually outperform a theoretically good algorithm running on data in stack. This is because there is a time and space complexity to memory access and storage efficiency that is not part of the mathematical model in most cases and even if attempted to model often get ignored as lower order terms that can have high impact. This is because these will show up as a long series of lower order terms which can have a much larger impact when there are sufficiently large number of lower order terms which are ignored by the model.
Imagine n3+86n2+5*106n2+109n
It's clear that the lower order terms that have high multiples will likely together have larger significance than the highest order term which the big O model tends to ignore. It would have us ignore everything other than n3. The term "sufficiently large n' is completely abused to imagine unrealistic scenarios to justify the algorithm. For this case, n has to be so large that you will run out of physical memory long before you have to worry about the algorithm itself. The algorithm doesn't matter if you can't even store the data. When memory access is modeled in; the lower order terms may end up looking like the above polynomial with over a 100 highly scaled lower order terms. However for all practical purposes these terms are never even part of the equation that the algorithm is trying to define.
Most scientific notations are generally the description of mathematical functions and used to model something. They are tools. As such the utility of the tool is constrained and only as good as the model itself. If the model cannot describe or is an ill fit to the problem at hand, then the model simply doesn't serve the purpose. This is when a different model needs to be used and when that doesn't work, a direct approach may serve your purpose well.
In addition many of the original algorithms were models of Turing machine that has a completely different working mechanism and all computing today are RASP models. Before you go into big O or any other model, ask yourself this question first "Am I choosing the right model for the task at hand and do I have the most practically accurate mathematical function ?". If the answer is 'No', then go with your experience, intuition and ignore the fancy stuff.