Re: N*log(N) doesn't exist (Re: [RFC] Vector (string?) growth...)

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> | Still, this is the first time that I notice that a requirement in the
> | standard cannot strictly speaking be assessed. So to speak, there are
> | areas where it's "undecidable" ;) if a library, running on a finite
> | system, is conforming or not.
>
> The standard is not written with all mathematical rigour, so I don't
> know how you define "strctly speaking assessed".

Eh, right, but this is a slippery slope... I'm definitely not Bourbaki-an
in math (I'm not a mathematician at all ;) but in other areas things seem
simpler. For instance, talking of strings or vectors, requiring a given
behavior for push_back, I don't know, perhaps we could even formalize it
couldn't we? Well, all over the world, real mathematicians prove theorems
about strings of zeros and ones as abstract dynamical systems..

Paolo.