Cryptography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for software developers, mathematicians and others interested in cryptography. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

By definition - $q(n)$ is a negligible function if for every positive integer $c>0$ there exist an integer $N_c$ such that for all $x>N_c$ :

  • $q(n)<1/x^c$

So for the function $1/x$, if we take the positive integer $c=1$ then we need to find some $N_c$ such that for every $x>N_c$:

  • $1/x<1/x$

$=>$ Definitely such $N_c$ does not exist then $1/x$ is not a negligible function.

Is that sufficient?

share|improve this question
Why wouldn't it be? – poncho Nov 22 '13 at 23:26
Related – rath Nov 23 '13 at 0:01
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Yes, that is sufficient.

I realise this isn't the most helpful of answers, but I'm not quite sure how we're supposed to deal with questions that lend themselves so neatly to one word answers. Certainly it seems wrong that something that has been solved should continue to sit in the 'unanswered questions' column!

share|improve this answer
I didn't know how to ask it differently.. – Bush Nov 25 '13 at 19:27

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.