Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: binary search with arbitrary or random split
Posted:
Jul 24, 2012 9:26 PM
|
|
pam <pamelafluente@libero.it> 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.
--
Ben.
|
|
|
|
