Re: Is it possible to delete an element from a sorted array with O(1) time?

"Kai-Uwe Bux" <jkherciueh@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fad8qb$oij$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

* Kai-Uwe Bux:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

* Jon Harrop:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
First, my answer was not convoluted...
Then why did it take a dozen posts to clarify?
Sorry, that's incorrect. What took some discussion to clarify was
another poster's notion that the question "had" to imply a special set
of requirements that that poster imagined. Which it didn't have.

Nonsense.

The OPs question was

Is it possible to delete an element from a sorted array with O(1)
time?

It uses "an" and "a". Because of ambiguity in indeterminate articles in
the English language, there are at least four basic ways of reading the
question:

(a) Is it possible to delete some element from some sorted array with
O(1) time?

(b) Is it possible to delete some element from any sorted array with
O(1)
time?

(c) Is there some sorted array from which any element can be deleted
with
O(1) time?

(d) Is it possible to delete any element from any sorted array with O(1)
time.

Your answer ("yes") relied on a disambiguation of the OPs question.

Sorry, that is incorrect.

The question as stated is unambigious and corresponds to (a), which I
demonstrated simply by doing /exactly/ what was asked for, literally.

Incorrect.

You should have no problem finding treatments of the well known ambiguity
from indefinite articles in any decent grammar of the English language or
most introduction to logic.


However, we have discussed how also (b), (c) and (d) must necessarily
yield the answer "yes".

Incorrect.


Only with

1) a particular interpretation of /delete/, plus
2) adding in a universal quantification (that it should always be
possible),

can you get "no", and that is a fanciful, wishful, special case
interpretation, adding in tons of arbitrary requirements not present in
the OP's question.

Incorrect in that these requirements are not arbitrary but inherent.

You are correct, though, that making these requirements explicit requires
more interpretation than just disambiguation of indefinite articles.
However, such interpretation is easily done and shows that the answer to
what the OP most likely wanted to know is "no". Note that it is the task
of
interpretation of a question to deterimine what piece of information the
person asking the question is after. Your choice of (a) fails dramatically
in this regard.


(Later
posts made it clear that [Alf's answer] belonged to the a-c range).

Should read [Alfs disambiguation of the OPs question]. Since a-d are
disambiguations and not answers, the "Your answer" clause is not what the
particle "it" for which you inserted [Alf's answer] refers to.

Sorry, that is incorrect.

Your std::vector<>.pop_back() example speaks clearly to this. Also, above
you claimed that you interpret the OPs question as literally meaning (a),
which is in the a-c range. Thus, my statement that your interpretation is
in that range is correct.

However, I see that your comment is simply based on a misunderstanding of
my
claim.


Starting from here, there are two positbilities:

1) There is no canonical disambiguation.

In this case, your answer was an unqualified answer to a genuinely
ambiguous question and therefore meaningless as it cannot be guessed to
which of the various legitimate readings of the question it pertains.

Sorry, that is incorrect.

Note that in this distinction of cases, a hypothetical discussion takes
place. So all that is claimed in this paragraph is that

IF there is no canonical disambiguation,
THEN an unqualified answer is meaningless.

That statement (which it the one I made) is correct.

However, since we seem to agree that there is a canonical disambiguation
(although we differ in which one it is), we could drop this case (1) from
the discussion.


2) There is a canonical disambiguation (which happens to be the case for
the OPs question).

Sorry, that is incorrect.

Above you claimed that (a) is the only possible reading, i,e., you already
stated in your own words that there is a canonical disambiguation
(although
you happen to be mistaken as to what the canonical disambiguation is).


In this case, correctness of your answer has to be determined by whether
it fits that canonical disambiguation., which in the case at hand is
(d).
The correct answer to (d), however is "no".


[snip]

Sorry, that attempted analysis is incorrect, predicated on ignoring all
you added to the question (mainly, definition of delete, and universal
quantification).

This summary does not require discussion as all your arguments leading up
to
it are mistaken.

Alf put just as much effort into his original reply than the OP put into
formulating his question. If the OP wanted more information, then he should
of supplied more information.

People who ask a simple yes/no question should not be suprised when they get
a simple yes/no answer.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is it possible to delete an element from a sorted array with O(1) time?
    ... Is it possible to delete an element from a sorted array with Otime? ... Sorry, that is incorrect. ... a particular interpretation of /delete/, ... There is no canonical disambiguation. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: More Deaths Blamed on Bush
    ... interpretation of all things Biblical just may be wrong? ... Refusing to answer a trick question is not a "dodge." ... Leftover wine must not be poured back in the bottle. ... and that I'm very sure I was incorrect. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Ambiguity
    ... (If anyone could use a time calculator, or would like to see the code used, ... Leaving aside the relationship between meaning and interpretation... ... I want to make sure ambiguity doesn't result in wrong ... The time 00:01 AM is incorrect, but it is clear and unambiguous. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Why the literalist interpretation of the Bible is wrong
    ... (What *does* render such a reading invalid is that it ... the initial premise that the bible is a holy book. ... However it does proof that a literal interpretation leads to ... i say that the story therefore is incorrect. ...
    (talk.origins)