I must admit that I actually spent some time with paper trying to come up with a non-recursive formula for the Fibonacci numbers. When that did not work, I tried google. I guess there really is no way of doing that at this time, but is there an actual proof that Fibonacci sequence cannot be defined without recursion?
That aside, one lesson learned from this past lecture was that working with recursion and finding more efficient ways of handling it requires a lot of patience, which may or may not pay off (looking for a non-recursive Fibonacci formula did not pay off).
Working with time complexity seemed like a much easier task after that, despite random confusion about which expression should be greater or smaller than the other. If that is going to be on the test, then I suppose we need to remember which of the Θ, Ω and O are which, but hopefully their definitions will be provided.
2 comments:
Since this post, we've talked about a closed form for F(n), I guess. It's strange it didn't turn up in google.
At the time I did not use the fancy phrase "closed form", so that must have been the problem.
Post a Comment