Related
Sometimes I see Θ(n) with the strange Θ symbol with something in the middle of it, and sometimes just O(n). Is it just laziness of typing because nobody knows how to type this symbol, or does it mean something different?
Short explanation:
If an algorithm is of Θ(g(n)), it means that the running time of the algorithm as n (input size) gets larger is proportional to g(n).
If an algorithm is of O(g(n)), it means that the running time of the algorithm as n gets larger is at most proportional to g(n).
Normally, even when people talk about O(g(n)) they actually mean Θ(g(n)) but technically, there is a difference.
More technically:
O(n) represents upper bound. Θ(n) means tight bound.
Ω(n) represents lower bound.
f(x) = Θ(g(x)) iff f(x) =
O(g(x)) and f(x) = Ω(g(x))
Basically when we say an algorithm is of O(n), it's also O(n2), O(n1000000), O(2n), ... but a Θ(n) algorithm is not Θ(n2).
In fact, since f(n) = Θ(g(n)) means for sufficiently large values of n, f(n) can be bound within c1g(n) and c2g(n) for some values of c1 and c2, i.e. the growth rate of f is asymptotically equal to g: g can be a lower bound and and an upper bound of f. This directly implies f can be a lower bound and an upper bound of g as well. Consequently,
f(x) = Θ(g(x)) iff g(x) = Θ(f(x))
Similarly, to show f(n) = Θ(g(n)), it's enough to show g is an upper bound of f (i.e. f(n) = O(g(n))) and f is a lower bound of g (i.e. f(n) = Ω(g(n)) which is the exact same thing as g(n) = O(f(n))). Concisely,
f(x) = Θ(g(x)) iff f(x) = O(g(x)) and g(x) = O(f(x))
There are also little-oh and little-omega (ω) notations representing loose upper and loose lower bounds of a function.
To summarize:
f(x) = O(g(x)) (big-oh) means that
the growth rate of f(x) is
asymptotically less than or equal
to to the growth rate of g(x).
f(x) = Ω(g(x)) (big-omega) means
that the growth rate of f(x) is
asymptotically greater than or
equal to the growth rate of g(x)
f(x) = o(g(x)) (little-oh) means that
the growth rate of f(x) is
asymptotically less than the
growth rate of g(x).
f(x) = ω(g(x)) (little-omega) means
that the growth rate of f(x) is
asymptotically greater than the
growth rate of g(x)
f(x) = Θ(g(x)) (theta) means that
the growth rate of f(x) is
asymptotically equal to the
growth rate of g(x)
For a more detailed discussion, you can read the definition on Wikipedia or consult a classic textbook like Introduction to Algorithms by Cormen et al.
There's a simple way (a trick, I guess) to remember which notation means what.
All of the Big-O notations can be considered to have a bar.
When looking at a Ω, the bar is at the bottom, so it is an (asymptotic) lower bound.
When looking at a Θ, the bar is obviously in the middle. So it is an (asymptotic) tight bound.
When handwriting O, you usually finish at the top, and draw a squiggle. Therefore O(n) is the upper bound of the function. To be fair, this one doesn't work with most fonts, but it is the original justification of the names.
one is Big "O"
one is Big Theta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation
Big O means your algorithm will execute in no more steps than in given expression(n^2)
Big Omega means your algorithm will execute in no fewer steps than in the given expression(n^2)
When both condition are true for the same expression, you can use the big theta notation....
Rather than provide a theoretical definition, which are beautifully summarized here already, I'll give a simple example:
Assume the run time of f(i) is O(1). Below is a code fragment whose asymptotic runtime is Θ(n). It always calls the function f(...) n times. Both the lower and the upper bound is n.
for(int i=0; i<n; i++){
f(i);
}
The second code fragment below has the asymptotic runtime of O(n). It calls the function f(...) at most n times. The upper bound is n, but the lower bound could be Ω(1) or Ω(log(n)), depending on what happens inside f2(i).
for(int i=0; i<n; i++){
if( f2(i) ) break;
f(i);
}
Theta is a shorthand way of referring to a special situtation where
the big O and Omega are the same.
Thus, if one claims The Theta is expression q, then they are also necessarily claiming that Big O is expression q and Omega is expression q.
Rough analogy:
If:
Theta claims, "That animal has 5 legs."
then it follows that:
Big O is true ("That animal has less than or equal to 5 legs.")
and
Omega is true("That animal has more than or equal to 5 legs.")
It's only a rough analogy because the expressions aren't necessarily specific numbers, but instead functions of varying orders of magnitude such as log(n), n, n^2, (etc.).
A chart could make the previous answers easier to understand:
Θ-Notation - Same order | O-Notation - Upper bound
In English,
On the left, note that there is an upper bound and a lower bound that are both of the same order of magnitude (i.e. g(n) ). Ignore the constants, and if the upper bound and lower bound have the same order of magnitude, one can validly say f(n) = Θ(g(n)) or f(n) is in big theta of g(n).
Starting with the right, the simpler example, it is saying the upper bound g(n) is simply the order of magnitude and ignores the constant c (just as all big O notation does).
f(n) belongs to O(n) if exists positive k as f(n)<=k*n
f(n) belongs to Θ(n) if exists positive k1, k2 as k1*n<=f(n)<=k2*n
Wikipedia article on Big O Notation
Using limits
Let's consider f(n) > 0 and g(n) > 0 for all n. It's ok to consider this, because the fastest real algorithm has at least one operation and completes its execution after the start. This will simplify the calculus, because we can use the value (f(n)) instead of the absolute value (|f(n)|).
f(n) = O(g(n))
General:
f(n)
0 ≤ lim ──────── < ∞
n➜∞ g(n)
For g(n) = n:
f(n)
0 ≤ lim ──────── < ∞
n➜∞ n
Examples:
Expression Value of the limit
------------------------------------------------
n = O(n) 1
1/2*n = O(n) 1/2
2*n = O(n) 2
n+log(n) = O(n) 1
n = O(n*log(n)) 0
n = O(n²) 0
n = O(nⁿ) 0
Counterexamples:
Expression Value of the limit
-------------------------------------------------
n ≠ O(log(n)) ∞
1/2*n ≠ O(sqrt(n)) ∞
2*n ≠ O(1) ∞
n+log(n) ≠ O(log(n)) ∞
f(n) = Θ(g(n))
General:
f(n)
0 < lim ──────── < ∞
n➜∞ g(n)
For g(n) = n:
f(n)
0 < lim ──────── < ∞
n➜∞ n
Examples:
Expression Value of the limit
------------------------------------------------
n = Θ(n) 1
1/2*n = Θ(n) 1/2
2*n = Θ(n) 2
n+log(n) = Θ(n) 1
Counterexamples:
Expression Value of the limit
-------------------------------------------------
n ≠ Θ(log(n)) ∞
1/2*n ≠ Θ(sqrt(n)) ∞
2*n ≠ Θ(1) ∞
n+log(n) ≠ Θ(log(n)) ∞
n ≠ Θ(n*log(n)) 0
n ≠ Θ(n²) 0
n ≠ Θ(nⁿ) 0
Conclusion: we regard big O, big θ and big Ω as the same thing.
Why? I will tell the reason below:
Firstly, I will clarify one wrong statement, some people think that we just care the worst time complexity, so we always use big O instead of big θ. I will say this man is bullshitting. Upper and lower bound are used to describe one function, not used to describe the time complexity. The worst time function has its upper and lower bound; the best time function has its upper and lower bound too.
In order to explain clearly the relation between big O and big θ, I will explain the relation between big O and small o first. From the definition, we can easily know that small o is a subset of big O. For example：
T(n)= n^2 + n, we can say T(n)=O(n^2), T(n)=O(n^3), T(n)=O(n^4). But for small o, T(n)=o(n^2) does not meet the definition of small o. So just T(n)=o(n^3), T(n)=o(n^4) are correct for small o. The redundant T(n)=O(n^2) is what? It's big θ!
Generally, we say big O is O(n^2), hardly to say T(n)=O(n^3), T(n)=O(n^4). Why? Because we regard big O as big θ subconsciously.
Similarly, we also regard big Ω as big θ subconsciously.
In one word, big O, big θ and big Ω are not the same thing from the definitions, but they are the same thing in our mouth and brain.
I am reading an example where the following are equivalent to O(N):
O(N + P), where P < N/2
O(N + log N)
Can someone explain in laymen terms how it is that the two examples above are the same thing as O(N)?
We always take the greater one in case of addition.
In both the cases N is bigger than the other part.
In first case P < N/2 < N
In second case log N < N
Hence the complexity is O(N) in both the cases.
Let f and g be two functions defined on some subset of the real numbers. One writes
f(x) = O(g(x)) as x -> infinite
if and only if there is a positive constant M such that for all sufficiently large values of x, the absolute value of f(x) is at most M multiplied by the absolute value of g(x). That is, f(x) = O(g(x)) if and only if there exists a positive real number M and a real number x0 such that
|f(x)| <= M |g(x)| for all x > x0
So in your case 1:
f(N) = N + P <= N + N/2
We could set M = 2 Then:
|f(N)| <= 3/2|N| <= 2|N| (N0 could any number)
So:
N+p = O(N)
In your second case, we could also set M=2 and N0=1 to satify that:
|N + logN| <= 2 |N| for N > 1
Big O notation usually only provides an upper bound on the growth rate of the function, wiki. Meaning for your both cases, as P < N and logN < N. So that O(N + P) = O(2N) = O(N), The same to O(N + log N) = O(2N) = O(N). Hope that can answer your question.
For the sake of understanding you can assume that O(n) represents that the complexity is of the order of n and also that O notation represents the upper bound(or the complexity in worst case). So, when I say that O(n+p) it represents that the order of n+p.
Let's assume that in worst case p = n/2, then what would be order of n+n/2? It would still be O(n), that is, linear because constants do form a part of the Big-O notation.
Similary, for O(n+logn) because logn can never be greater than n. So, overall complexity turns out to be linear.
In short
If N is a function and C is a constant:
O(N+N/2):
If C=2, then for any N>1 :
(C=2)*N > N+N/2,
2*N>3*N/2,
2> 3/2 (true)
O(N+logN):
If C=2, then for any N>2 :
(C=2)*N > N+logN,
2*N > N+logN,
2>(N+logN)/N,
2> 1 + logN/N (limit logN/N is 0),
2>1+0 (true)
Counterexample O(N^2):
No C exists such that C*N > N^2 :
C > N^2/N,
C>N (contradiction).
Boring mathematical part
I think the source of confusion is that equals sign in O(f(x))=O(N) does not mean equality! Usually if x=y then y=x. However consider O(x)=O(x^2) which is true, but reverse is false: O(x^2) != O(x)!
O(f(x)) is an upper bound of how fast a function is growing.
Upper bound is not an exact value.
If g(x)=x is an upper bound for some function f(x), then function 2*g(x) (and in general anything growing faster than g(x)) is also an upper bound for f(x).
The formal definition is: for function f(x) to be bound by some other function g(x) if you chose any constant C then, starting from some x_0 g(x) is always greater than f(x).
f(x)=N+N/2 is the same as 3*N/2=1.5*N. If we take g(x)=N and our constant C=2 then 2*g(x)=2*N is growing faster than 1.5*N:
If C=2 and x_0=1 then for any n>(x_0=1) 2*N > 1.5*N.
same applies to N+log(N):
C*N>N+log(N)
C>(N+logN)/N
C>1+log(N)/N
...take n_0=2
C>1+1/2
C>3/2=1.5
use C=2: 2*N>N+log(N) for any N>(n_0=2),
e.g.
2*3>3+log(3), 6>3+1.58=4.68
...
2*100>100+log(100), 200>100+6.64
...
Now interesting part is: no such constant exist for N & N^2. E.g. N squared grows faster than N:
C*N > N^2
C > N^2/N
C > N
obviously no single constant exists which is greater than a variable. Imagine such a constant exists C=C_0. Then starting from N=C_0+1 function N is greater than constant C, therefore such constant does not exist.
Why is this useful in computer science?
In most cases calculating exact algorithm time or space does not make sense as it would depend on hardware speed, language overhead, algorithm implementation details and many other factors.
Big O notation provides means to estimate which algorithm is better independently from real world complications. It's easy to see that O(N) is better than O(N^2) starting from some n_0 no matter which constants are there in front of two functions.
Another benefit is ability to estimate algorithm complexity by just glancing at program and using Big O properties:
for x in range(N):
sub-calc with O(C)
has complexity of O(N) and
for x in range(N):
sub-calc with O(C_0)
sub-calc with O(C_1)
still has complexity of O(N) because of "multiplication by constant rule".
for x in range(N):
sub-calc with O(N)
has complexity of O(N*N)=O(N^2) by "product rule".
for x in range(N):
sub-calc with O(C_0)
for y in range(N):
sub-calc with O(C_1)
has complexity of O(N+N)=O(2*N)=O(N) by "definition (just take C=2*C_original)".
for x in range(N):
sub-calc with O(C)
for x in range(N):
sub-calc with O(N)
has complexity of O(N^2) because "the fastest growing term determines O(f(x)) if f(x) is a sum of other functions" (see explanation in the mathematical section).
Final words
There is much more to Big-O than I can write here! For example in some real world applications and algorithms beneficial n_0 might be so big that an algorithm with worse complexity works faster on real data.
CPU cache might introduce unexpected hidden factor into otherwise asymptotically good algorithm.
Etc...
Why is ω(n) smaller than O(n)?
I know what is little omega (for example, n = ω(log n)), but I can't understand why ω(n) is smaller than O(n).
Big Oh 'O' is an upper bound and little omega 'ω' is a Tight lower bound.
O(g(n)) = { f(n): there exist positive constants c and n0 such that 0 ≤ f(n) ≤ cg(n) for all n ≥ n0}
ω(g(n)) = { f(n): for all constants c > 0, there exists a constant n0 such that 0 ≤ cg(n) < f(n) for all n ≥ n0}.
ALSO: infinity = lim f(n)/g(n)
n ∈ O(n) and n ∉ ω(n).
Alternatively:
n ∈ ω(log(n)) and n ∉ O(log(n))
ω(n) and O(n) are at the opposite side of the spectrum, as is illustrated below.
Formally,
For more details, see CSc 345 — Analysis of Discrete Structures
(McCann), which is the source of the graph above. It also contains a compact representation of the definitions, which makes them easy to remember:
I can't comment, so first of all let me say that n ≠ Θ(log(n)). Big Theta means that for some positive constants c1, c2, and k, for all values of n greater than k, c1*log(n) ≤ n ≤ c2*log(n), which is not true. As n approaches infinity, it will always be larger than log(n), no matter log(n)'s coefficient.
jesse34212 was correct in saying that n = ω(log(n)). n = ω(log(n)) means that n ≠ Θ(log(n)) AND n = Ω(log(n)). In other words, little or small omega is a loose lower bound, whereas big omega can be loose or tight.
Big O notation signifies a loose or tight upper bound. For instance, 12n = O(n) (tight upper bound, because it's as precise as you can get), and 12n = O(n^2) (loose upper bound, because you could be more precise).
12n ≠ ω(n) because n is a tight bound on 12n, and ω only applies to loose bounds. That's why 12n = ω(log(n)), or even 12n = ω(1). I keep using 12n, but that value of the constant does not affect the equality.
Technically, O(n) is a set of all functions that grow asymptotically equal to or slower than n, and the belongs character is most appropriate, but most people use "= O(n)" (instead of "∈ O(n)") as an informal way of writing it.
Algorithmic complexity has a mathematic definition.
If f and g are two functions, f = O(g) if you can find two constants c (> 0) and n such as f(x) < c * g(x) for every x > n.
For Ω, it is the opposite: you can find constants such as f(x) > c * g(x).
f = Θ(g) if there are three constants c, d and n such as c * g(x) < f(x) < d * g(x) for every x > n.
Then, O means your function is dominated, Θ your function is equivalent to the other function, Ω your function has a lower limit.
So, when you are using Θ, your approximation is better for you are "wrapping" your function between two edges ; whereas O only set a maximum. Ditto for Ω (minimum).
To sum up:
O(n): in worst situations, your algorithm has a complexity of n
Ω(n): in best case, your algorithm has a complexity of n
Θ(n): in every situation, your algorithm has a complexity of n
To conclude, your assumption is wrong: it is Θ, not Ω. As you may know, n > log(n) when n has a huge value. Then, it is logic to say n = Θ(log(n)), according to previous definitions.
Sometimes I see Θ(n) with the strange Θ symbol with something in the middle of it, and sometimes just O(n). Is it just laziness of typing because nobody knows how to type this symbol, or does it mean something different?
Short explanation:
If an algorithm is of Θ(g(n)), it means that the running time of the algorithm as n (input size) gets larger is proportional to g(n).
If an algorithm is of O(g(n)), it means that the running time of the algorithm as n gets larger is at most proportional to g(n).
Normally, even when people talk about O(g(n)) they actually mean Θ(g(n)) but technically, there is a difference.
More technically:
O(n) represents upper bound. Θ(n) means tight bound.
Ω(n) represents lower bound.
f(x) = Θ(g(x)) iff f(x) =
O(g(x)) and f(x) = Ω(g(x))
Basically when we say an algorithm is of O(n), it's also O(n2), O(n1000000), O(2n), ... but a Θ(n) algorithm is not Θ(n2).
In fact, since f(n) = Θ(g(n)) means for sufficiently large values of n, f(n) can be bound within c1g(n) and c2g(n) for some values of c1 and c2, i.e. the growth rate of f is asymptotically equal to g: g can be a lower bound and and an upper bound of f. This directly implies f can be a lower bound and an upper bound of g as well. Consequently,
f(x) = Θ(g(x)) iff g(x) = Θ(f(x))
Similarly, to show f(n) = Θ(g(n)), it's enough to show g is an upper bound of f (i.e. f(n) = O(g(n))) and f is a lower bound of g (i.e. f(n) = Ω(g(n)) which is the exact same thing as g(n) = O(f(n))). Concisely,
f(x) = Θ(g(x)) iff f(x) = O(g(x)) and g(x) = O(f(x))
There are also little-oh and little-omega (ω) notations representing loose upper and loose lower bounds of a function.
To summarize:
f(x) = O(g(x)) (big-oh) means that
the growth rate of f(x) is
asymptotically less than or equal
to to the growth rate of g(x).
f(x) = Ω(g(x)) (big-omega) means
that the growth rate of f(x) is
asymptotically greater than or
equal to the growth rate of g(x)
f(x) = o(g(x)) (little-oh) means that
the growth rate of f(x) is
asymptotically less than the
growth rate of g(x).
f(x) = ω(g(x)) (little-omega) means
that the growth rate of f(x) is
asymptotically greater than the
growth rate of g(x)
f(x) = Θ(g(x)) (theta) means that
the growth rate of f(x) is
asymptotically equal to the
growth rate of g(x)
For a more detailed discussion, you can read the definition on Wikipedia or consult a classic textbook like Introduction to Algorithms by Cormen et al.
There's a simple way (a trick, I guess) to remember which notation means what.
All of the Big-O notations can be considered to have a bar.
When looking at a Ω, the bar is at the bottom, so it is an (asymptotic) lower bound.
When looking at a Θ, the bar is obviously in the middle. So it is an (asymptotic) tight bound.
When handwriting O, you usually finish at the top, and draw a squiggle. Therefore O(n) is the upper bound of the function. To be fair, this one doesn't work with most fonts, but it is the original justification of the names.
one is Big "O"
one is Big Theta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation
Big O means your algorithm will execute in no more steps than in given expression(n^2)
Big Omega means your algorithm will execute in no fewer steps than in the given expression(n^2)
When both condition are true for the same expression, you can use the big theta notation....
Rather than provide a theoretical definition, which are beautifully summarized here already, I'll give a simple example:
Assume the run time of f(i) is O(1). Below is a code fragment whose asymptotic runtime is Θ(n). It always calls the function f(...) n times. Both the lower and the upper bound is n.
for(int i=0; i<n; i++){
f(i);
}
The second code fragment below has the asymptotic runtime of O(n). It calls the function f(...) at most n times. The upper bound is n, but the lower bound could be Ω(1) or Ω(log(n)), depending on what happens inside f2(i).
for(int i=0; i<n; i++){
if( f2(i) ) break;
f(i);
}
Theta is a shorthand way of referring to a special situtation where
the big O and Omega are the same.
Thus, if one claims The Theta is expression q, then they are also necessarily claiming that Big O is expression q and Omega is expression q.
Rough analogy:
If:
Theta claims, "That animal has 5 legs."
then it follows that:
Big O is true ("That animal has less than or equal to 5 legs.")
and
Omega is true("That animal has more than or equal to 5 legs.")
It's only a rough analogy because the expressions aren't necessarily specific numbers, but instead functions of varying orders of magnitude such as log(n), n, n^2, (etc.).
A chart could make the previous answers easier to understand:
Θ-Notation - Same order | O-Notation - Upper bound
In English,
On the left, note that there is an upper bound and a lower bound that are both of the same order of magnitude (i.e. g(n) ). Ignore the constants, and if the upper bound and lower bound have the same order of magnitude, one can validly say f(n) = Θ(g(n)) or f(n) is in big theta of g(n).
Starting with the right, the simpler example, it is saying the upper bound g(n) is simply the order of magnitude and ignores the constant c (just as all big O notation does).
f(n) belongs to O(n) if exists positive k as f(n)<=k*n
f(n) belongs to Θ(n) if exists positive k1, k2 as k1*n<=f(n)<=k2*n
Wikipedia article on Big O Notation
Using limits
Let's consider f(n) > 0 and g(n) > 0 for all n. It's ok to consider this, because the fastest real algorithm has at least one operation and completes its execution after the start. This will simplify the calculus, because we can use the value (f(n)) instead of the absolute value (|f(n)|).
f(n) = O(g(n))
General:
f(n)
0 ≤ lim ──────── < ∞
n➜∞ g(n)
For g(n) = n:
f(n)
0 ≤ lim ──────── < ∞
n➜∞ n
Examples:
Expression Value of the limit
------------------------------------------------
n = O(n) 1
1/2*n = O(n) 1/2
2*n = O(n) 2
n+log(n) = O(n) 1
n = O(n*log(n)) 0
n = O(n²) 0
n = O(nⁿ) 0
Counterexamples:
Expression Value of the limit
-------------------------------------------------
n ≠ O(log(n)) ∞
1/2*n ≠ O(sqrt(n)) ∞
2*n ≠ O(1) ∞
n+log(n) ≠ O(log(n)) ∞
f(n) = Θ(g(n))
General:
f(n)
0 < lim ──────── < ∞
n➜∞ g(n)
For g(n) = n:
f(n)
0 < lim ──────── < ∞
n➜∞ n
Examples:
Expression Value of the limit
------------------------------------------------
n = Θ(n) 1
1/2*n = Θ(n) 1/2
2*n = Θ(n) 2
n+log(n) = Θ(n) 1
Counterexamples:
Expression Value of the limit
-------------------------------------------------
n ≠ Θ(log(n)) ∞
1/2*n ≠ Θ(sqrt(n)) ∞
2*n ≠ Θ(1) ∞
n+log(n) ≠ Θ(log(n)) ∞
n ≠ Θ(n*log(n)) 0
n ≠ Θ(n²) 0
n ≠ Θ(nⁿ) 0
Conclusion: we regard big O, big θ and big Ω as the same thing.
Why? I will tell the reason below:
Firstly, I will clarify one wrong statement, some people think that we just care the worst time complexity, so we always use big O instead of big θ. I will say this man is bullshitting. Upper and lower bound are used to describe one function, not used to describe the time complexity. The worst time function has its upper and lower bound; the best time function has its upper and lower bound too.
In order to explain clearly the relation between big O and big θ, I will explain the relation between big O and small o first. From the definition, we can easily know that small o is a subset of big O. For example：
T(n)= n^2 + n, we can say T(n)=O(n^2), T(n)=O(n^3), T(n)=O(n^4). But for small o, T(n)=o(n^2) does not meet the definition of small o. So just T(n)=o(n^3), T(n)=o(n^4) are correct for small o. The redundant T(n)=O(n^2) is what? It's big θ!
Generally, we say big O is O(n^2), hardly to say T(n)=O(n^3), T(n)=O(n^4). Why? Because we regard big O as big θ subconsciously.
Similarly, we also regard big Ω as big θ subconsciously.
In one word, big O, big θ and big Ω are not the same thing from the definitions, but they are the same thing in our mouth and brain.
I have studied Introduction to Algorithms by CLRS in great details,but one thing is not clear yet.
Why is max(m,n)=O(m,n)?
Please explain,it would be great help!
max(m, n) = O(m+n) simply means that, asymptotically speaking, max(m, n) doesn't grow more quickly than m+n. Since max(m, n) < m + n for all m, n, this must be true. Note that max(m, n) is equal either to m or n, either of which is guaranteed to be less than m + n (as long as m and n are nonnegative, which can be assumed).
Strictly speaking G(n) ∈ O(F(n)) means means that G(n) belongs to the infinite set of functions that are asymptotically bound under or equal to some C * F(n).
Big Oh Cheat Sheet
Big Oh - Bound under or equal to
Little Oh - Bound under and not equal to
Theta - Equal to, not under or over
Little Omega - Bound over and not equal to
Big Omega - Bound over and or equal to
Misconception
Expressing that something = O(f(n)) is mathematically incorrect although even most professors make this mistake, it should be something ∈ O(f(n))
So it is true that Max(M, N) ∈ O(M + N) because Max(M, N) is asymptotically bound under or equal to M + N.
So it is true that 1 ∈ O(log n) ∈ O(n) ∈ O(n^2) ∈ O(n^2) ∈ O(n!).
This took me some time to get my head around but it's very easy once you do. It's critical to fully grasp this once you get into more advanced topics in algorithms and data structures.