You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
10 points

the computational cost of operating over a matrix is always going to be convex relative to its size

This makes no sense - “convex” doesn’t mean fast-growing. For instance a constant function is convex.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

you will be pleased to know that the original text said “superlinear”; i just couldn’t remember if the lower bound of multiplying a sufficiently sparse matrix was actually lower than O(n²) (because you could conceivably skip over big chunks of it) and didn’t feel like going and digging that fact out. i briefly felt “superlinear” was too clunky though and switched it to “convex” and that is when you saw it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Hell, so is 1/x for positive values of x. Or any linear function, including those with negative slope.

permalink
report
parent
reply

SneerClub

!sneerclub@awful.systems

Create post

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

[Especially don’t debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

Community stats

  • 305

    Monthly active users

  • 121

    Posts

  • 1.9K

    Comments