I have recently encountered a series of perturbation problems in which the Big Oh notation is used frequently. Since I have not encountered this notation before, I am a little bit confused about it. I have read various websites about it, and I get the idea behind it (I also can quite easily look at a function and determine what order the function has), but a few statements in my text book still leave me confused.
For instance, in my book it says the following at one point:
Consider
q(x,ϵ)=y0+y1=e1−x+e(1−e−x/ϵ)
If x=O(1), then
q(x,ϵ)=e1−x+e+O(ϵ)
I am a little bit confused about the whole "If x=O(1), then. . ." part of the problem. Why is it here necessary to state this? Is this because, if x=O(1), then we have x<A, where A is a constant? Thus x does not approach infinity, and then the last estimation above follows? Is this correct reasoning? This is what I assume based on how I've interprerted the definition of Big Oh, but I could be wrong here.
I would greatly appreciate it if someone could explain this to me.
Answer
I think there is confusion because usually when we talk about Big-Oh, it is assumed that n→∞. However, when we are talking about 'small quantities' like ϵ, then we mean that ϵ→0 instead. You can think of it as ϵ=1n→0.
You can see the term e1−x/ϵ is smaller than ϵ. So we say it is O(ϵ). A graph on wolframalpha may convince you by ploting e1−1/x−x on x=0..1. See here
No comments:
Post a Comment