pam <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: <snip> > I am doing this to make the split point explicitly dependent on n > or else we have experts like Ben coming out and saying that it's > O(n) for reason due to the split point being independent of n ;-)
What does the wink signify to you? To me it means, "I know this not what Ben said but I hope I get a rise from him by saying it". If that's want you were going for, you nailed it; if not, you may want to re-think you use of smilies.
<snip> > Ben seemed to agree at one point that vanishing events should not be > considered ("vanishing" meaning > with a limiting probability 0), but then said he is in agreement with > Patricia. > > So at the moment i have still not understood what is the answer ;-)
That's a flat-out lie. I said I did not know what a "vanishing event" was, so how could you read that as agreeing to anything about them at all? I don't think you are confused about what I said, I think you want to misrepresent it for your own purposes.
<snip> > Well in any case i might say that is O(logn) "almost certain". Can we > agree on that ? Or no ?
Why do you care? No one would use a random slit when a binary split is simple and efficient. What's the actual algorithm you have in mind whose worst-case cost you are so keen to be logarithmic? There's more to this that you are letting on, and it's starting to have a hint of obsession about it. Spill the beans.