Monday, 21 August 2017

asymptotics - Big Oh notation/estimation




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=e1x+e(1ex/ϵ)



If x=O(1), then




q(x,ϵ)=e1x+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 ϵ0 instead. You can think of it as ϵ=1n0.



You can see the term e1x/ϵ is smaller than ϵ. So we say it is O(ϵ). A graph on wolframalpha may convince you by ploting e11/xx on x=0..1. See here


No comments:

Post a Comment

real analysis - How to find limhrightarrow0fracsin(ha)h

How to find limh0sin(ha)h without lhopital rule? I know when I use lhopital I easy get $$ \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}...