Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


JT
Posts:
1,434
Registered:
4/7/12


Re: Just finished the fastest ever, general purpose sorting algorithm.
Posted:
Jan 5, 2013 9:29 PM


On 6 Jan, 02:51, "fasnsto" <inva...@invalid.com> wrote: > "JT" <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:7756d0ff9c3445c58cb859cfa529f428@n5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com... > On 5 Jan, 18:39, forbisga...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3074861/binarysortalgorithmi > > > Algorithmi? That's sorta correct. it points to: > > >http://www.brpreiss.com/books/opus5/html/page487.html > > > It says: > > Whereas a linear search requires O(n) comparisons in the worst case, a > > binary search only requires comparisons > > > and gives this caveat: > > The number of comparisons required by the straight insertion sort is in > > the worst case as well as on average. Therefore on average, the binary > > insertion sort uses fewer comparisons than straight insertion sort. On the > > other hand, the previous section shows that in the best case the running > > time for straight insertion is O(n). Since the binary insertion sort > > method always does the binary search, its best case running time is . > > Table summarizes the asymptotic running times for the two insertion sorts. > > > (sorry that didn't all copy. quicksort is probably better in most cases.) > >I am not sure if you looked at my countsort algorithm using arrays, it > >is further down in sci.math. But my algorithms do not compare anything > >it just read in the values in an ordered fashion, > > <snip> So, someone has already put it in order for you. Trivial. > > your algorithm cannot sort if it fails to compare.
Numb and mindless, no it does not compare the numbers have weight and are placed in the binary tree depending on weight, i do not compare it with other values in tree. Can you understand or do you need a translator into stupidness?



