Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:21:54 07/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 1999 at 15:31:21, KarinsDad wrote:
[snip]
>11) Having a carefully prepared list will stifle innovation. People who WANT to
>tinker will be told "Well, the list says that the algorithm XYZZY sucks in
>practice, so don't bother to use it.". Essential is hardly the word I would use
>to describe such a list.
1. Bubble sort O(n^2) {large C constant term}
2. Insertion sort O(n^2) {small C}
3. Heap sort O(nlogn) {large C}
4. Singleton's sort O(nlogn) {small C}
5. Radix sort O(n) {but a function of the key length}
Does this discourage you when you want to try a sorting routine? I have a list
like this that is much larger. And yet I have invented a sort that is now used
in current database systems. The list did not discourage me. The list showed
me what current routines behave like. I can look at the routines and understand
their strenghts and weaknesses, and also not waste time studying bubble sort.
>I am not trying to be antagonistic here with you Dann (regardless of the tone
>above), but I think your idea is lukewarm at best. You are one of those people
>who appear to like to prove things and to categorize things. Let's prove that
>one algorithm is faster or better than another and write it down for everyone to
>see. I am one of those people who like to investigate things just for the sake
>of investigating. Let's see if this idea is good or not. I do not need to know
>to the nth degree just how many percentage points in speed one algorithm gains
>over another and why that might be, just that one worked better for me.
Both approaches lead to solutions. I agree that I am a quantifier. It's an
illness.
>Different strokes for different folks I guess.
Whatchu talking about Willis?
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.