pam <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: <snip> > I think that you care more about appearing right at any time, then > really caring for the > real essence of the discussion.
Then you've not seen any of the posts where I am wrong with depressing frequency. I don't recall ever being wrong and not saying so when it's been pointed out.
> In fact i have not yet understood what > is your answer, > but mostly seen sort of "self defensing" formal remarks, or > aggressiveness when in difficulty.
No, you can't be any doubt about what my answer is. I said it's linear and not logarithmic -- O(n) and not O(log(n)) -- and I've said it more than once. I don't think you have any trouble understand that this is my answer.
You might have trouble understanding why this is my answer. Here I can only say that I've been as clear as I can be. If you could say what parts are not clear to you, I could say more.
> We are not here to fight: just to discuss. I am not afraid of being > wrong: it's what > allows me to understand better.
If you want a discussion, can I suggest you answer requests for clarification?
>> Why do you care? > > If one said that for any new question there would be no progress. > You may never know what kind of implication may stem from new > developments. > > Further, if for each question being asked, one replied with "why do > you care" > there would not be much point having a discussion group. ;-)
If every question got the detailed and helpful discussion that this one has had, before someone asks "why do you care?" then Usenet would be a health place indeed.
I was not dismissive of the original question (any idea how much time my detailed answers have taken me?), it was a genuine request to know why you care. I went on to say why it hard to see why this matters to you since both a practical alternative to the analysis (do an average case analysis which will weight costs by likelihood) and an optimal alternative algorithm (binary search) have been discussed. There is something else going on here which you are not talking about.
> About smiling i use normally as a sign of friendship, because since > the written communication does not allow to see people in the face, > sometime one might wonder about the nature of a remark. > > So a smile is just a way to say i am smiling at you. I am thankful, > and so on, > and not an enemy or an obsessed ;-))
Then all I can say is take care. ;-) is a wink not a smile. If I say "you agree that you are not telling us the whole story", that might just be a misunderstanding, but if I add a wink to that, I'm being deliberately provocative.