Re: C Sharp sorting considered superior to C by an order of magnitude
- From: Julienne Walker <happyfrosty@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 05:20:22 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 25, 6:47 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 25, 8:31 pm, Daniel Kraft <d...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
spinoza1111 wrote:
Just for the sake of it, why did you only implement O(n^2) algorithms
Quicksort isn't O(n^2) it is O(n) for random data, and the O(n^2) case
is detectable O(n): so a fast quicksort is O(n).
I think you mean O(N log N). For random data, a comparison based
sorting algorithm can't break N log N as a lower bound.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: C Sharp sorting considered superior to C by an order of magnitude
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: C Sharp sorting considered superior to C by an order of magnitude
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: C Sharp sorting considered superior to C by an order of magnitude
- References:
- C Sharp sorting considered superior to C by an order of magnitude
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: C Sharp sorting considered superior to C by an order of magnitude
- From: Willem
- Re: C Sharp sorting considered superior to C by an order of magnitude
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: C Sharp sorting considered superior to C by an order of magnitude
- From: spinoza1111
- Re: C Sharp sorting considered superior to C by an order of magnitude
- From: Daniel Kraft
- Re: C Sharp sorting considered superior to C by an order of magnitude
- From: spinoza1111
- C Sharp sorting considered superior to C by an order of magnitude
- Prev by Date: Re: C Sharp sorting considered superior to C by an order of magnitude
- Next by Date: Re: Petition for the removal or voluntary departure of Richard Heathfield from this newsgroup
- Previous by thread: Re: C Sharp sorting considered superior to C by an order of magnitude
- Next by thread: Re: C Sharp sorting considered superior to C by an order of magnitude
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|