Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:35:13 11/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 07, 2003 at 10:39:47, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On November 07, 2003 at 10:22:13, margolies,marc wrote: > >>it can be irrelevant with specific regard to the numerical efficiency of the >>algorythm. >>We all are familiar with orders of magnitude. I reminding you that while using >>even the case of identical datasets, algorythms perform jobs differently with >>respect to the scale of the data. What is efficient at one scale is too much >>work at another. >>Even when data is the same, and required output is the same, the amount of >>effort in clock cycles to do the job is different, has a different cost in >>resources. That's what makes them different. > >That's what makes them identical in this case: they search the same (amount of) >nodes! > >You've just reinforced my point. > >-- >GCP "identical in this case" != identical. You can't take one algorithm from one class of algorithms, and take another algorithm from another class of algorithms, and show that for some cases they are equal, therefore the classes themselves are equal. It doesn't work like that. You also can't compare final results and conclude equivalence either. See my comment on bubble vs heap sort.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.