Hacker News Reader

Comment by anikan_vader | Hacker News Reader

>> The first graph demonstrates the O(n²) complexity of the algorithm. We can see that as the community grows larger, even by a small amount, the amount of iterations it takes to solve the matching problem grows exponentially.

This statement is contradictory. Probably the author is using "exponentially" to mean quick growth. I suppose this is alright in common parlance, but I find it disturbing when people describe a function as exponential just because it is a superlinear polynomial.

View on HN

Yeah, I'm willing to let this slide coming from regular folk in everyday conversations, but when you're writing a blog post about algorithms and you just said it was O(n^2)... this is a situation where I think it's reasonable to expect someone to hold to the technical meaning of a term.

Whenever I visit family in the midwest this phenomenon makes me twitch.

It seems people out there have taken to using "exponentially" as a pseudo-scientific word meaning "a lot". i.e. "you're making my job exponentially more difficult"

Edit: fixed typo :)

These phenomena make me twitch.

It seems like people out there are using "this phenomena" to mean "this phenomenon."

I say this not to be rude, but to note that if we needlessly scrutinize each other's grammar, no one will be happy.

I'm smiling tho.

On the other end of the spectrum, I like when people tell me "you're making my job exponentially more difficult, with a negative exponent" to let me know I'm doing a good job. Math nerds are the best coworkers

This bothers me to no end too. But I’ve given up in every trying to fix it, it’s entered the public lexicon, if you want to talk about actual exponential growth you need to be more specific now.

i literally feel the same way about the current usage of the word "literally" and i mean that in the literal way. :)

> ”I find it disturbing when people describe a function as exponential just because it is a superlinear polynomial.”

This is the kind of statement people should put in their dating profiles if they want fewer but better matches. No, I’m not teasing you (ok just a little). Show quirky elements of yourself, just keep the mood sunny rather than salty.

And the chart actually looks very close to linear

Everything is linear on a log enough scale ;)

It's not a log scale, though? It's just slightly unfortunate that the small curvature of the plot is hard to see.

Going against the grain with this pun!

Not exponentials

Uh? log(2^x) == xlog(2) which is linear?

if y = 2^x then taking logs of both x and y we have log y = 2 ^ log x, still an exponential relation.

so it depends on whether "log enough scale" applies to both axes...

Then there's functions like n -> 2^2^...^2 with an exponential tower of height n. That's doesn't become linear with any finite number of logs...

If y = 2^x, then log y != 2^log x because of Jensen's inequality. You can take log of both sides to keep the equality, but applying the transformation inside of 2^() results in the equality turning into a strict inequality.

I'd say if the graph isn't linear, one of the axes aren't log enough...

Nice pun. Possibly also gets points for being a reference to number 6 in this classic list:

https://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

6. (Mar's Law) Everything is linear if plotted log-log with a fat magic marker.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com