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


JT
Posts:
1,388
Registered:
4/7/12


Re: Just finished the fastest ever, general purpose sorting algorithm.
Posted:
Jan 6, 2013 7:41 AM


On 6 Jan, 07:33, "sanebow" <spaml...@spamless.com> wrote: > "JT" <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:0f14db88dfcb463b83fc1b641eabecff@eo2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > 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 "presorters effort" and calling it your own, shame > !
No there is no presort only indexing and counting, go read any page about indexing and countsort.



