"JT" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... On 6 Jan, 02:51, "fasnsto" <inva...@invalid.com> wrote: > "JT" <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > 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.
and you dont know much about sorting.
sorting is compairing, however you indicate someone or something already sorted or placed them in order for you, before your "recrsiv algorithms" simply read the results. simplistic. and you are stealing the "pre-sorters effort" and calling it your own, shame !