有人必须吸可卡因才能写出O(x!)吗?

不用，用Prolog就行。如果您在Prolog中编写排序算法，只需描述每个元素都应该比前一个元素大，并让回溯为您进行排序，那么它将是O(x!)也称为“排列排序”。

big - o符号对代码的重要意义在于，当它所操作的“事物”数量增加一倍时，它将如何扩展。这里有一个具体的例子:

Big-O       |  computations for 10 things |  computations for 100 things
----------------------------------------------------------------------
O(1)        |   1                         |     1
O(log(n))   |   3                         |     7
O(n)        |  10                         |   100
O(n log(n)) |  30                         |   700
O(n^2)      | 100                         | 10000

快速排序是O(nlog (n))而冒泡排序是O(n²)当排序10个东西时，快速排序比冒泡排序快3倍。但当对100个东西进行排序时，速度要快14倍!显然，选择最快的算法很重要。当您访问具有数百万行的数据库时，这可能意味着您的查询在0.2秒内执行，而不是花费数小时。

另一件需要考虑的事情是，糟糕的算法是摩尔定律无法帮助的事情。例如，如果你有一个O(n^3)的科学计算，它一天可以计算100个东西，处理器速度翻倍一天只能计算125个东西。然而，计算到O(n²)，你每天要做1000件事情。

澄清: 实际上，Big-O并没有说不同算法在同一特定大小点上的性能比较，而是说同一算法在不同大小点上的性能比较:

                 computations     computations       computations
Big-O       |   for 10 things |  for 100 things |  for 1000 things
----------------------------------------------------------------------
O(1)        |        1        |        1        |         1
O(log(n))   |        1        |        3        |         7
O(n)        |        1        |       10        |       100
O(n log(n)) |        1        |       33        |       664
O(n^2)      |        1        |      100        |     10000

堂。neufeld的答案非常好，但我可能会分两部分解释它:首先，大多数算法都属于O()的粗略层次结构。然后，你可以看看每一种算法，得出那种时间复杂度的典型算法是怎么做的。

出于实际目的，似乎唯一重要的O()是:

O(1) "constant time" - the time required is independent of the size of the input. As a rough category, I would include algorithms such as hash lookups and Union-Find here, even though neither of those are actually O(1). O(log(n)) "logarithmic" - it gets slower as you get larger inputs, but once your input gets fairly large, it won't change enough to worry about. If your runtime is ok with reasonably-sized data, you can swamp it with as much additional data as you want and it'll still be ok. O(n) "linear" - the more input, the longer it takes, in an even tradeoff. Three times the input size will take roughly three times as long. O(n log(n)) "better than quadratic" - increasing the input size hurts, but it's still manageable. The algorithm is probably decent, it's just that the underlying problem is more difficult (decisions are less localized with respect to the input data) than those problems that can be solved in linear time. If your input sizes are getting up there, don't assume that you could necessarily handle twice the size without changing your architecture around (eg by moving things to overnight batch computations, or not doing things per-frame). It's ok if the input size increases a little bit, though; just watch out for multiples. O(n^2) "quadratic" - it's really only going to work up to a certain size of your input, so pay attention to how big it could get. Also, your algorithm may suck -- think hard to see if there's an O(n log(n)) algorithm that would give you what you need. Once you're here, feel very grateful for the amazing hardware we've been gifted with. Not long ago, what you are trying to do would have been impossible for all practical purposes. O(n^3) "cubic" - not qualitatively all that different from O(n^2). The same comments apply, only more so. There's a decent chance that a more clever algorithm could shave this time down to something smaller, eg O(n^2 log(n)) or O(n^2.8...), but then again, there's a good chance that it won't be worth the trouble. (You're already limited in your practical input size, so the constant factors that may be required for the more clever algorithms will probably swamp their advantages for practical cases. Also, thinking is slow; letting the computer chew on it may save you time overall.) O(2^n) "exponential" - the problem is either fundamentally computationally hard or you're being an idiot. These problems have a recognizable flavor to them. Your input sizes are capped at a fairly specific hard limit. You'll know quickly whether you fit into that limit.

就是这样。还有很多其他的可能性在这些之间(或大于O(2^n))，但它们在实践中不经常发生，它们与这些中的任何一个在性质上没有太大的不同。三次算法已经有点牵强了;我之所以把它们包括进来，是因为我经常遇到它们，值得一提(例如矩阵乘法)。

这类算法到底发生了什么?我认为你有一个很好的开始，尽管有很多例子不符合这些特征。但对于上述情况，我认为通常是这样的:

O(1) - you're only looking at most at a fixed-size chunk of your input data, and possibly none of it. Example: the maximum of a sorted list. Or your input size is bounded. Example: addition of two numbers. (Note that addition of N numbers is linear time.) O(log n) - each element of your input tells you enough to ignore a large fraction of the rest of the input. Example: when you look at an array element in binary search, its value tells you that you can ignore "half" of your array without looking at any of it. Or similarly, the element you look at gives you enough of a summary of a fraction of the remaining input that you won't need to look at it. There's nothing special about halves, though -- if you can only ignore 10% of your input at each step, it's still logarithmic. O(n) - you do some fixed amount of work per input element. (But see below.) O(n log(n)) - there are a few variants. You can divide the input into two piles (in no more than linear time), solve the problem independently on each pile, and then combine the two piles to form the final solution. The independence of the two piles is key. Example: classic recursive mergesort. Each linear-time pass over the data gets you halfway to your solution. Example: quicksort if you think in terms of the maximum distance of each element to its final sorted position at each partitioning step (and yes, I know that it's actually O(n^2) because of degenerate pivot choices. But practically speaking, it falls into my O(n log(n)) category.) O(n^2) - you have to look at every pair of input elements. Or you don't, but you think you do, and you're using the wrong algorithm. O(n^3) - um... I don't have a snappy characterization of these. It's probably one of: You're multiplying matrices You're looking at every pair of inputs but the operation you do requires looking at all of the inputs again the entire graph structure of your input is relevant O(2^n) - you need to consider every possible subset of your inputs.

这些都不严谨。尤其是线性时间算法(O(n)):我可以举出很多例子，你必须看所有的输入，然后是一半，然后是一半，等等。或者反过来——将输入对折叠在一起，然后对输出进行递归。这些不符合上面的描述，因为你不是只看一次每个输入，但它仍然是线性时间。不过，在99.2%的情况下，线性时间意味着只查看一次每个输入。

好吧，这里有一些非常好的答案，但几乎所有的答案似乎都犯了同样的错误，这是一个普遍的常见用法。

非正式地，我们写f(n) = O(g(n))如果，直到一个比例因子，对于所有n大于某个n0, g(n)大于f(n)。也就是说，f(n)的增长速度并不比g(n)快，或者从上到下以g(n)为界。这并没有告诉我们f(n)增长有多快，除了它保证不会比g(n)差。

一个具体的例子:n = O(2^n)我们都知道n的增长速度比2^n慢得多，所以我们可以说它的上界是指数函数。在n和2^n之间有很大的空间，所以它不是一个很紧的边界，但它仍然是一个合理的边界。

为什么我们(计算机科学家)使用边界而不是精确?因为a)边界通常更容易证明，b)它为我们提供了一种表达算法属性的简便方法。如果我说我的新算法是O(n.log n)，这意味着在最坏的情况下，它的运行时间将在n个输入上以n.log n为界，对于足够大的n(尽管请参阅下面我的评论，当我可能不是指最坏情况时)。

如果相反，我们想说一个函数的增长速度与其他函数一样快，我们用theta来说明这一点(我将T(f(n))写成markdown表示\ (f(n))。T(g(n))是上下以g(n)为界的缩写，直到一个比例因子且渐近。

这是f (n) = T (g (n)) < = > f (n) = O (g (n))和g (n) = O (f (n))。在我们的例子中，我们可以看到n != T(2^n)因为2^n != O(n)。

为什么要担心这个呢?因为在你的问题中，你写了“一个人必须吸可卡因才能写出一个O(x!)?”答案是否定的——因为基本上你写的所有东西都会以阶乘函数为界。快速排序的运行时间是O(n!) -这不是一个严格的界限。

这里还有另一个微妙的维度。通常我们用O(g(n))表示最坏情况的输入，这样我们就得到了一个复合语句:在最坏情况下运行时间不会比g(n)步的算法差，同样是模缩放，而且n足够大，但有时我们想讨论平均情况甚至最佳情况的运行时间。

香草快速排序就是一个很好的例子。在最坏的情况下是T(n²)(实际上至少需要n²步，但不会多很多)，但在平均情况下是T(n.log n)，也就是说期望的步数与n.log n成正比。在最好的情况下也是T(n.log n) -但你可以改进它，例如，检查数组是否已经排序在哪种情况下，最佳运行时间将是T(n)。

How does this relate to your question about the practical realisations of these bounds? Well, unfortunately, O( ) notation hides constants which real-world implementations have to deal with. So although we can say that, for example, for a T(n^2) operation we have to visit every possible pair of elements, we don't know how many times we have to visit them (except that it's not a function of n). So we could have to visit every pair 10 times, or 10^10 times, and the T(n^2) statement makes no distinction. Lower order functions are also hidden - we could have to visit every pair of elements once, and every individual element 100 times, because n^2 + 100n = T(n^2). The idea behind O( ) notation is that for large enough n, this doesn't matter at all because n^2 gets so much larger than 100n that we don't even notice the impact of 100n on the running time. However, we often deal with 'sufficiently small' n such that constant factors and so on make a real, significant difference.

例如，快速排序(平均成本T(n.log n))和堆排序(平均成本T(n.log n))都是具有相同平均成本的排序算法——但快速排序通常比堆排序快得多。这是因为堆排序比快速排序对每个元素做了更多的比较。

这并不是说O()符号是无用的，只是不精确。对于小n来说，这是一个相当钝的工具。

(作为本文的最后一个注意事项，请记住O()表示法只是描述任何函数的增长——它不一定是时间，它可以是内存、分布式系统中交换的消息或并行算法所需的cpu数量。)

有一件事由于某种原因还没有被提及:

当你看到像O(2^n)或O(n^3)这样的算法时，这通常意味着你将不得不接受一个不完美的问题答案，以获得可接受的性能。

在处理优化问题时，像这样的正确解决方案很常见。在合理的时间内给出一个近乎正确的答案，总比在机器腐烂成灰尘很久之后才给出一个正确答案要好。

以国际象棋为例:我不知道正确的解决方案是什么，但它可能是O(n^50)或更糟。从理论上讲，任何计算机都不可能真正计算出正确答案——即使你用宇宙中的每个粒子作为计算元素，在宇宙生命周期内尽可能短的时间内执行一项操作，你仍然会剩下很多零。(量子计算机能否解决这个问题是另一回事。)

把它想象成垂直堆叠乐高积木(n)，然后跳过它们。

O(1)表示在每一步，你什么都不做。高度保持不变。

O(n)表示在每一步，你堆叠c块，其中c1是常数。

O(n²)表示在每一步，你堆叠c2 x n个块，其中c2是一个常数，n是堆叠块的数量。

O(nlogn)表示在每一步，你堆叠c3 x n x logn个块，其中c3是一个常数，n是堆叠块的数量。