Re: puzzle



CBFalconer wrote:
> Christopher Barber wrote:
> > spinoza1111@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> Christopher Barber wrote:
> >>> spinoza1111@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>> pete wrote:
> >>>>> spinoza1111@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> You're doing O(n) searches, times a linearly shrinking array,
> >>>>>> only in the worst case. N/2 the time on average it finds U.
> >>>>>> This doesn't transform order n^2 because it divides by a
> >>>>>> constant and not N but it is none the less a significant
> >>>>>> reduction.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whatever O(n * n / 2) could possibley mean
> >>>>> is what O(n * n) actually means.
> >>>>> Constant factors aren't part of big O notation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course not. But, n*n/2 != n*n for positive n: n*n/2 < n*2
> >>>> for n>0.
> >>>
> >>> It is not clear to me that you understand. O(n*n) == O(n*n/2)!
> >>
> >> D'oh. As my kids would say.
> >>
> >> I am very disturbed by your failure to read the post properly,
> >> and this kneejerk reduction of discussion to the biographical
> >> issue of who understands what, which, as I have said, makes
> >> this ng useless for either discussion of technical issues or
> >> the generation of solidarity or understanding among programming
> >> professionals.
>
> The above sentence needs an early comma. There's only one sentence.

Boo hoo. IF you understand it enough to have the above opinion, then
the sentence does its job.

Complementary to the false consciousness of overidentification with
management is the false consciousness of pretending to speak for the
person who doesn't comprehend the text when you understand, or pretend
to understand, sufficient to revise the text.

I remain disturbed by your failure to read the post, and this
reductionism of discussion to biography. It makes, as I have stated,
this ng useless for technical discussion or the formation of a
programmer consciousness distinct from the needs of an uncaring
management who is only amused by people who have no clear conception of
their interests.
>
> >
> > You should consider the possiblity that the reason that people are
> > not understanding you the way you intend is because you are failing
> > to communicate effectively and clearly. Your tendency to use (and
> > sometimes misuse) obscure words and to insert long paragraphs of
> > orthogonal social commentary does not make it easy for people to
> > understand what you are saying.
> >
> >> For, I used the phrase "close to" as regards O(n).
> >>
> >> O(n*n) == O(n*n/2), of course. But it's also the case for
> >> practical applications that n*n/2 < n*n.
>
> That depends on the definition of '2'.

Obviously, 2 has its ordinary meaning. If you're trying to be a
smartass, don't quit your day job.

> >
> > Sure, given the choice between an algorithm that costs n*n steps
> > and one that costs n*n/2 steps of the same size, the latter is a
> > better choice in terms of cost, but I don't known anyone other
> > than you that would call such an algorithm "close to" O(n). When
> > there are linear and O(n log n) algorithms that are also simpler
> > to implement, what is the practical use case for your algorithm?
> >
> >>> The important point is that as the size of the data set doubles,
> >>> the cost of the algorithm quadruples. Dividing by two doesn't
> >>> change this.
> >>>
> >>>> The resentment here is of ability to explain, complementary to
> >>>> the inability to read shown by O'Dwyer who read a claim for
> >>>> O(n) when I said "close to".
> >>>
> >>> When you are taking about the O() notation, there is no such
> >>> thing as "close to". Something is either O(n) or it is not.
> >>> O'Dwyer probably assumed that you knew that.
> >>
> >> It's obvious from the original post that I understand,
> >
> > Actually, it really was not all that obvious.
>
> I think it is a shame the way people pick on poor Nilges, just
> because he is ignorant of various things, and has a slight tendency
> to be portentously profligate with Freudian verbiage about very
> little, and to redefine words to suit his view. I can simply
> refute his claim by defining 2 as identical to 1/3. Having done
> this, all even numbers become divisible by 3. See how easy it is?
> And I did it with an O(1) algorithm!
>
> So let's pay him and his thoughts the respect they deserve.
>
Yeah, lets. For it remains the case despite your word-games, which bear
no resemblance to my writing at all, that for n>0, n*n/2 is less than
n*n by a number greater than the infinitesimal. Even for n=1, chump.
> --
> "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
> the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
> "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
> "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thmpson

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Algorithm For Ensuring p & q Sufficiently Large For n in RSA
    ... probability of mathematical failure just means that you are getting your ... contract for an algorithm, then it should do that, ... adverse effect is less than chance of all of you spontaneously ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Checking return values for errors, a matter of style?
    ... fancy in response to a mallocfailure? ... In other words, get out gracefully, preferably without losing any user data. ... fall back to an alternative algorithm that uses less memory. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Using MGF1 for key generation
    ... >> The only downside is that as Paul Rubin points out there are ... > Is this required rollover due solely to the failure of a particular ... > algorithm, and if so, would it not extend the time between failures ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: PKI: the end
    ... the published deterministic polynomial algorithm ... The usual primality test is Rabin-Miller, with a fixed failure ... number is prime with probability at least 1-2^. ...
    (sci.crypt)