From 3b85d113f01db2ee25a119a54919c6a1b34c038b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Douglas Rumbaugh Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:58:05 -0400 Subject: update --- chapters/dynamization.tex | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'chapters') diff --git a/chapters/dynamization.tex b/chapters/dynamization.tex index c48a781..12b3a2b 100644 --- a/chapters/dynamization.tex +++ b/chapters/dynamization.tex @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ large part of the reason why $C(n)$-decomposability is not particularly desirable compared to standard decomposability, where $C(n) \in \Theta(1)$ and thus falls out of the cost function. -\section{Decomposition Methods} +\section{Decomposition-based Dynamization for Half-dynamic Structures} The previous discussion reveals the basic tension that exists within decomposition based techniques: larger block sizes result @@ -709,7 +709,7 @@ time. Additionally, if $B(n) \in \Omega(n^{1 + \epsilon})$ for $\epsilon > 0$, then the bottom level dominates the reconstruction cost, and the worst-case bound drops to $I(n) \in \Theta(\frac{B(n)}{n})$. -\section{Delete Support} +\section{Decomposition-based Dynamization for Full-dynamic Structures} \label{ssec:dyn-deletes} Classical dynamization techniques have also been developed with -- cgit v1.2.3