absurd MacOS High Sierra bug

[John Newman]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:46:12PM +0000, \0xDynamite wrote:
> > Top posting now ...
> 
> Shin!  Sorry about that, thanks for pointing it out.
> 
> > First thought was "thoughts", but the electron synapse reaction time
> > is rather measurable I believe, and so in principle the manifestation
> > of the thought as a set of images (or words or what have you), is
> > most likely O(1).
> >
> > Perhaps O(0) is things that could have happened, but did not happen?
> 
> In C, printf("Hello world.") is an O(1) function (the number of
> charactes is constant), but in Python, I'm suggesting that it might be
> O(0) due to Python being designed as a high-level language, where the
> # of characters isn't considered for computing the function, but as
> seen as one operation.
> 
> That's my take...

That's not what it means / how it works. I'm not much of a
mathematician, but O(1) simply means a routine that will always
take the same amount of time, regardless the input data.

If you don't know the length of the string before hand, and assuming for
sake of example none of the arguments to printf are function calls, eg
printf("math results: %.2f!\n", unknown_math_func(23)), then
I suppose its O(N) where N = the length of the string being printed.

I don't see why this would be any different for Python and its print
function (again, assuming none of the arguments to a format string
are function calls, e.g. -  print "math results: %.2f!\n" %
(unknown_math_func(23)).

I honestly don't know where you geting the idea of O(0) from.. It made
me start thinking of quantum entanglement and time travel. But I did eat
a brownie earlier :P

> 
> Marxos

-- 
GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4  C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20171129/2ec28338/attachment-0002.sig>