home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: seagoon.newcastle.edu.au!usenet
- From: mazz@faceng.newcastle.edu.au (Richard Mazzaferri)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: Fastest Sorting Algorithm?
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 14:09:12 GMT
- Organization: Newcastle University
- Message-ID: <316c78c8.3816674@news.newcastle.edu.au>
- References: <Dou55w.7MB@novice.uwaterloo.ca> <DpAxtI.3w9@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> <4k4unk$15qe@sol.caps.maine.edu> <4k680p$6fs@longwood.cs.ucf.edu> <4k6hdg$5ob@blackice.winternet.com> <316b7b66.13881382@news.newcastle.edu.au> <4kgck5$98v@blackice.winternet.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: tesla.newcastle.edu.au
-
- jdege@winternet.com (Jeff Dege) wrote:
-
- > On Wed, 10 Apr 1996 09:16:03 GMT, Richard Mazzaferri (mazz@faceng.newcastle.edu.au) wrote:
- > :
- > : Which of course (disregarding the fact that the algorithm fails to sort its
- > : inputs at all) is O(n) - much slower than the claimed O(2log n) algorithm
- > : :-)
- >
- > There's no such thing as O(2log n). Constant factors are removed in
- > big-O notation. So if you ever see O(2log n) you can assume that the
- > writer either made a type, or doesn't know what he's talking about.
-
- You are correct. I didn't want to complicate the issue by cleaning up the
- constant factor because that would weaken my reference to the "fastest"
- sorting algorithm claim made by another poster.
-
- > Meanwhile, the tricksort produces sorted output, which is all the spec
- > (incorrectly) requires.
-
- My point was that this spec fails to solve the problem of the original
- poster - which is to sort a list of items, not to produce a (trivial) list
- of sorted items unrelated to the input. Sure, TrickSort lives up to its
- own spec, but not the spec of the original problem.
-
- Have fun,
- Mazz.
- mazz@faceng.newcastle.edu.au
-