Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: binary search with arbitrary or random split
Replies: 2   Last Post: Jul 25, 2012 5:39 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Ben Bacarisse Posts: 1,972 Registered: 7/4/07
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.

Date Subject Author
7/24/12 Ben Bacarisse
7/25/12 pamela fluente