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 9:35 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.
You do not know much about recursiv algorithms do you.



