Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
JT
Posts:
436
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:7756d0ff-9c34-45c5-8cb8-59cfa529f428@n5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
> On 5 Jan, 18:39, forbisga...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3074861/binary-sort-algorithmi
>
> > 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.
|
|
|
|
