Re:O(n^2), again, now in Windows Management Instrumentation
by MaximumYComb on Tuesday December 10, 2019 @03:09AM
(#21750610)
With n = 26, the combinatorial process takes 4 times as long. 4 x 10^26 "counts". Googles SHA1 collision attack two years ago used roughly 10^19 computations. So we're off by a factor of 10^7.
I'm curious if the rise of quantum computers will make the differences between exponential and combinatorial meaningful in a practical sense.
Re:O(n^2), again, now in Windows Management Instrumentation
by paulddraper on Monday December 09, 2019 @07:46PM
(#21748476)
That's probably why it's misused so much.
But even without any scaling factors, don't underestimate the size of the numbers involved. If you had two threads, one simply counting up to some n! upper bound, and the other up to 10^n - how long do you think the minimum problem size would take for the "slow" combinatorial to actually be slower than the exponentiation? Hint: at 4GHz and 1 op/cycle... Let's just say I'm not holding my breath that our species will still be around then. And even a tiny scaling factor to the mix...
I mean, if you're trying to estimate computational complexity at least, this nuance seems pointless.
But quadratic vs. exponential really matters, with plausible parameters.