Oh, I could cheat and make, OK the upper bound a half, but that wouldn't be very honest.

噢，我可以像作弊一样,把上界扩大两倍，但这看起来没什么用。

麻省理工公开课 - 计算机科学及编程导论课程节选

So the basic idea was fine, but I failed to satisfy the initial condition that the answer had to be between the lower bound and the upper bound. Right?

因此基础的思想是对的，但是程序没能满足,正确答案在给定的区间内这个条件,对不对？

麻省理工公开课 - 计算机科学及编程导论课程节选

All right? If you run it, you have a sense of the upper bound, about how much time it's going to take to do this computation, so you're not going to get surprised by something showing up.

第一，这样做意味着没有意外了对不对？,你去运行程序,你已经大致知道运行时间的上限了，因此发生任何事情,你都不会吃惊了。

麻省理工公开课 - 计算机科学及编程导论课程节选

Doesn't need to be, so, what should I do about the upper bound here?

不必改下边界值，因此,我该对上边界值做个怎么样的改动呢？

麻省理工公开课 - 计算机科学及编程导论课程节选

I could get a really big upper bound, this thing grows exponentially.

那么我可以得出一个相当大的上界，我们可以给一个指数级增长的上限。

麻省理工公开课 - 计算机科学及编程导论课程节选

I could cheat. I said I just want an upper bound.

我可以不太实在，我说过了想要一个上界。

麻省理工公开课 - 计算机科学及编程导论课程节选