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 6, 2013 12:57 PM
|
|
On 6 Jan, 07:33, "sanebow" <spaml...@spamless.com> wrote:
> "JT" <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0f14db88-dfcb-463b-83fc-1b641eabecff@eo2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
>
> 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
> !
Recursiv algorithms work this way once you construct the algo to run
each digit sized value in a single branch, you can run each digit of
that original value in a single branch, this i not rocket science.
It is just the final countdown.
|
|
|
|
