Timeline for A dual to Hilbert's $\epsilon$ operator
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 11, 2023 at 17:01 | vote | accept | Trebor | ||
| Oct 14, 2021 at 15:37 | comment | added | Noah Schweber | @AlexKruckman Well, certainly the use of equality in the context of big-O is [unprintable sound effect], so I do have some stylistic sympathies. :P | |
| Oct 14, 2021 at 15:33 | comment | added | Alex Kruckman | @Trebor This is perhaps a tangent, but: what do you see as informal about the usual definition of big-O, and why would formalizing it require us to change our underlying logical formalism? | |
| Oct 14, 2021 at 14:20 | comment | added | Trebor | Yes, that matches up with my intuition. The motivation for this is to provide a more formal account for the big-O notation. Adding such a construct seems to require a substantial change of the formal system, e.g. treating $\delta$ as a special symbol, which is far less natural than the introduction of $\epsilon$. | |
| Oct 14, 2021 at 14:15 | history | answered | Noah Schweber | CC BY-SA 4.0 |