Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #47017 > unrolled thread
| Started by | xerofoify <xerofoify@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-02 10:14 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-03 08:05 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 128 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Qucksort for Linked List xerofoify <xerofoify@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 10:14 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-02 19:17 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-02 22:09 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-02 21:26 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-02 22:37 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-02 21:41 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-12 13:16 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-12 18:32 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-12 18:34 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-12-12 10:44 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-12 21:30 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-13 07:26 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-13 17:51 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-13 14:52 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-14 10:26 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 13:05 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-14 14:06 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 16:59 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 20:19 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-14 21:23 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 21:42 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-14 22:43 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-16 11:02 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-16 23:00 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-16 23:00 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-17 20:17 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 21:15 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-18 21:49 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-18 21:51 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 21:52 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-18 21:56 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-18 22:04 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-19 00:22 +0200
Re: Qucksort for Linked List "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 00:18 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-19 08:58 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 06:17 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-19 20:14 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-23 10:55 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 12:08 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-27 10:39 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-27 17:48 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-27 17:53 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 18:52 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-27 19:06 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 19:17 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-27 21:05 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 21:15 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-27 21:21 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 21:29 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-27 21:33 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-28 10:03 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 15:34 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-29 09:38 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-28 16:40 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 08:55 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 17:02 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-28 17:12 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-28 17:21 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-29 11:05 -0600
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 17:43 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-30 09:48 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 11:37 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-30 13:23 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-29 11:00 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-29 09:43 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 22:56 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 22:52 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-18 23:07 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 05:48 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-19 08:09 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-19 08:06 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List leigh.v.johnston@googlemail.com - 2016-12-19 04:46 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 15:04 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 06:40 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 18:48 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 18:53 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 21:26 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 20:32 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-19 19:09 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-19 19:14 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 19:31 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-19 19:45 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-19 20:19 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-20 07:18 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List leigh.v.johnston@googlemail.com - 2016-12-20 04:31 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-21 07:08 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-21 19:39 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 20:54 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 19:28 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-21 19:43 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-21 20:34 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 20:53 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-21 20:58 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 23:34 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-22 00:19 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2017-01-04 07:04 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 07:18 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 18:39 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 07:29 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2017-01-05 21:21 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-06 10:35 +1300
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-22 21:43 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-22 22:09 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-23 17:00 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-23 12:03 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-23 20:25 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 20:56 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-23 22:02 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-23 22:14 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-29 13:56 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-29 23:26 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-29 20:25 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2017-01-04 07:07 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-26 22:40 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List xerofoify <xerofoify@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 13:47 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2016-12-02 17:38 -0500
Re: Qucksort for Linked List xerofoify <xerofoify@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 14:53 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 19:50 -0500
Re: Qucksort for Linked List ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2016-12-02 21:17 -0500
Re: Qucksort for Linked List xerofoify <xerofoify@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 20:44 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List xerofoify <xerofoify@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 20:52 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 11:07 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2016-12-03 13:38 -0500
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-12-03 01:46 -0800
Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-12 13:18 +0000
Re: Qucksort for Linked List "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 01:16 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 08:25 +0100
Re: Qucksort for Linked List bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 08:05 +0100
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87vaumqjal.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #47366 |
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: > On 14/12/2016 20:19, Gareth Owen wrote: >> "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 13.12.2016 18:51, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> >>>> Quicksort will be worse than O(n . lg n) for linked lists. >>> >>> /That/ depends very much on the implementation, or possibly what one's >>> idea of the defining characteristic of Quicksort, is. >> >> Just be aware that Flibble has shown on multiple occasions that >> mathematics is not one of his strengths. > > By asserting that there is no such thing as negative zero and that > division by zero is undefined? My assertions are correct mate. They're true of the real numbers, but to suggest they're always true is to deny the the existence of projective geometry. Mathematics is not one of your strengths. I'll bet £1 to your favourite charity that your best qualification in Mathematics is not better than a 'B' at 'A-level'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 22:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LuCdnYuXe71gV8zFnZ2dnUU7-RednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #47367 |
On 14/12/2016 21:42, Gareth Owen wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: > >> On 14/12/2016 20:19, Gareth Owen wrote: >>> "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 13.12.2016 18:51, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Quicksort will be worse than O(n . lg n) for linked lists. >>>> >>>> /That/ depends very much on the implementation, or possibly what one's >>>> idea of the defining characteristic of Quicksort, is. >>> >>> Just be aware that Flibble has shown on multiple occasions that >>> mathematics is not one of his strengths. >> >> By asserting that there is no such thing as negative zero and that >> division by zero is undefined? My assertions are correct mate. > > They're true of the real numbers, but to suggest they're always true is > to deny the the existence of projective geometry. Projective bullshit more like. > > Mathematics is not one of your strengths. I'll bet £1 to your favourite > charity that your best qualification in Mathematics is not better than a > 'B' at 'A-level'. Ad hom, a logical fallacy. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 11:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o30hk4$112$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #47366 |
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> wrote: > By asserting that there is no such thing as negative zero and that > division by zero is undefined? My assertions are correct mate. So maybe show us how the asymptotic behavior of quicksort on linked lists is different than for random access arrays. The question here is not what the asymptotic behavior of quicksort is (because that's a bit complicated), but whether it's different for linked lists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 23:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ANqdnaKugKq-78nFnZ2dnUU7-VWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #47389 |
On 16/12/2016 11:02, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> wrote: >> By asserting that there is no such thing as negative zero and that >> division by zero is undefined? My assertions are correct mate. > > So maybe show us how the asymptotic behavior of quicksort on linked > lists is different than for random access arrays. > > The question here is not what the asymptotic behavior of quicksort > is (because that's a bit complicated), but whether it's different > for linked lists. Due to poor pivot choice worst case performance will manifest more often and that is quadratic complexity. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 23:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <kfnpokrdor0.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #47392 |
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: > On 16/12/2016 11:02, Juha Nieminen wrote: >> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> wrote: >>> By asserting that there is no such thing as negative zero and that >>> division by zero is undefined? My assertions are correct mate. >> >> So maybe show us how the asymptotic behavior of quicksort on linked >> lists is different than for random access arrays. >> >> The question here is not what the asymptotic behavior of quicksort >> is (because that's a bit complicated), but whether it's different >> for linked lists. > > Due to poor pivot choice worst case performance will manifest more > often and that is quadratic complexity. There is no reason that the choice of a pivot value has to be any worse in a linked list quicksort than an array quicksort. In particular, the entire linked list can be scanned, any constant number of times, looking for a pivot value, without changing the order of the algorithm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 20:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sbidnZCyNPHJAMjFnZ2dnUU7-YGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #47394 |
On 17/12/2016 07:00, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: > >> On 16/12/2016 11:02, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> wrote: >>>> By asserting that there is no such thing as negative zero and that >>>> division by zero is undefined? My assertions are correct mate. >>> >>> So maybe show us how the asymptotic behavior of quicksort on linked >>> lists is different than for random access arrays. >>> >>> The question here is not what the asymptotic behavior of quicksort >>> is (because that's a bit complicated), but whether it's different >>> for linked lists. >> >> Due to poor pivot choice worst case performance will manifest more >> often and that is quadratic complexity. > > There is no reason that the choice of a pivot value has to be any > worse in a linked list quicksort than an array quicksort. In > particular, the entire linked list can be scanned, any constant > number of times, looking for a pivot value, without changing the > order of the algorithm. Nah. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 21:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87inqhdjmj.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #47396 |
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: > On 17/12/2016 07:00, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> There is no reason that the choice of a pivot value has to be any >> worse in a linked list quicksort than an array quicksort. In >> particular, the entire linked list can be scanned, any constant >> number of times, looking for a pivot value, without changing the >> order of the algorithm. > > Nah. Mathematics is not a strength.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 21:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8KadncH99b3rmcrFnZ2dnUU7-b_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #47409 |
On 18/12/2016 21:15, Gareth Owen wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: > >> On 17/12/2016 07:00, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> There is no reason that the choice of a pivot value has to be any >>> worse in a linked list quicksort than an array quicksort. In >>> particular, the entire linked list can be scanned, any constant >>> number of times, looking for a pivot value, without changing the >>> order of the algorithm. >> >> Nah. > > Mathematics is not a strength. The bullshit branches of Mathematics are indeed not a strength mate because I see them for what they are: nonsense; they should be an adjunct to mathematics not a part of mathematics. There is no negative zero; and division by zero is undefined. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 21:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8KadncD99b1lmcrFnZ2dnUU7-b-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #47413 |
On 18/12/2016 21:49, Mr Flibble wrote: > On 18/12/2016 21:15, Gareth Owen wrote: >> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: >> >>> On 17/12/2016 07:00, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> There is no reason that the choice of a pivot value has to be any >>>> worse in a linked list quicksort than an array quicksort. In >>>> particular, the entire linked list can be scanned, any constant >>>> number of times, looking for a pivot value, without changing the >>>> order of the algorithm. >>> >>> Nah. >> >> Mathematics is not a strength. > > The bullshit branches of Mathematics are indeed not a strength mate > because I see them for what they are: nonsense; they should be an > adjunct to mathematics not a part of mathematics. There is no negative > zero; and division by zero is undefined. And whilst on the subject of bullshit mathematics: a countable infinity is unbounded just like an uncountable one. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 21:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87wpewkir1.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #47413 |
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: > On 18/12/2016 21:15, Gareth Owen wrote: >> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: >> >>> On 17/12/2016 07:00, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> There is no reason that the choice of a pivot value has to be any >>>> worse in a linked list quicksort than an array quicksort. In >>>> particular, the entire linked list can be scanned, any constant >>>> number of times, looking for a pivot value, without changing the >>>> order of the algorithm. >>> >>> Nah. >> >> Mathematics is not a strength. > > The bullshit branches of Mathematics are indeed not a strength mate > because I see them for what they are: nonsense; they should be an > adjunct to mathematics not a part of mathematics. There is no negative > zero; and division by zero is undefined. Mathematics is not a strength is it. Simple maths - junior school maths - you're ok with. Harder stuff you just dismiss. Tell us again how linked lists change the order of quicksort. Show your working.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 21:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8KadncP99b2-m8rFnZ2dnUU7-b-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #47415 |
On 18/12/2016 21:52, Gareth Owen wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: > >> On 18/12/2016 21:15, Gareth Owen wrote: >>> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: >>> >>>> On 17/12/2016 07:00, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>>> There is no reason that the choice of a pivot value has to be any >>>>> worse in a linked list quicksort than an array quicksort. In >>>>> particular, the entire linked list can be scanned, any constant >>>>> number of times, looking for a pivot value, without changing the >>>>> order of the algorithm. >>>> >>>> Nah. >>> >>> Mathematics is not a strength. >> >> The bullshit branches of Mathematics are indeed not a strength mate >> because I see them for what they are: nonsense; they should be an >> adjunct to mathematics not a part of mathematics. There is no negative >> zero; and division by zero is undefined. > > Mathematics is not a strength is it. Simple maths - junior school maths > - you're ok with. Harder stuff you just dismiss. No I don't dismiss the harder stuff; I dismiss bollocks such as projective geometry. It isn't mathematics it is an abstraction of mathematics. > > Tell us again how linked lists change the order of quicksort. See my other reply. > Show your working. Fuck off you self important cunt. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 22:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1_mdndo8d8VFmsrFnZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #47416 |
On 18/12/2016 21:56, Mr Flibble wrote: > On 18/12/2016 21:52, Gareth Owen wrote: >> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: >> >>> On 18/12/2016 21:15, Gareth Owen wrote: >>>> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: >>>>> >>>>> Nah. >>>> >>>> Mathematics is not a strength. >>> >>> The bullshit branches of Mathematics are indeed not a strength mate >>> because I see them for what they are: nonsense; they should be an >>> adjunct to mathematics not a part of mathematics. There is no negative >>> zero; and division by zero is undefined. >> >> Mathematics is not a strength is it. Simple maths - junior school maths >> - you're ok with. Harder stuff you just dismiss. > > No I don't dismiss the harder stuff; I dismiss bollocks such as > projective geometry. It isn't mathematics it is an abstraction of > mathematics. > As I can read you like a book and anticipate your next reply: yes the complex plane is an abstraction and no I don't think complex number theory is bullshit. This is not the same kind of abstraction as made with projective geometry. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 00:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <9IKdnXuRhJnakcrFnZ2dnUU78KnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #47417 |
On 19.12.2016 0:04, Mr Flibble wrote: > On 18/12/2016 21:56, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On 18/12/2016 21:52, Gareth Owen wrote: >>> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: >>> >>>> On 18/12/2016 21:15, Gareth Owen wrote: >>>>> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> Nah. >>>>> >>>>> Mathematics is not a strength. >>>> >>>> The bullshit branches of Mathematics are indeed not a strength mate >>>> because I see them for what they are: nonsense; they should be an >>>> adjunct to mathematics not a part of mathematics. There is no negative >>>> zero; and division by zero is undefined. >>> >>> Mathematics is not a strength is it. Simple maths - junior school maths >>> - you're ok with. Harder stuff you just dismiss. >> >> No I don't dismiss the harder stuff; I dismiss bollocks such as >> projective geometry. It isn't mathematics it is an abstraction of >> mathematics. >> > > As I can read you like a book and anticipate your next reply: yes the > complex plane is an abstraction and no I don't think complex number > theory is bullshit. This is not the same kind of abstraction as made > with projective geometry. So, how do you tell apart which abstractions are good and which are bad? In my naivety I have always thought all the maths is abstractions, basically about the same kind ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 00:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o375d6$dce$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47420 |
On 18.12.2016 23:22, Paavo Helde wrote: > > So, how do you tell apart which abstractions are good and which are bad? > In my naivety I have always thought all the maths is abstractions, > basically about the same kind ... I think what Mr. Flibble means is that some esoteric mathematical notions are being misunderstood as having practical utility for calculations. Cheers!, - Alf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 08:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o383so$f4f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47420 |
On 18/12/16 23:22, Paavo Helde wrote: > On 19.12.2016 0:04, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On 18/12/2016 21:56, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On 18/12/2016 21:52, Gareth Owen wrote: >>>> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 18/12/2016 21:15, Gareth Owen wrote: >>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nah. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mathematics is not a strength. >>>>> >>>>> The bullshit branches of Mathematics are indeed not a strength mate >>>>> because I see them for what they are: nonsense; they should be an >>>>> adjunct to mathematics not a part of mathematics. There is no negative >>>>> zero; and division by zero is undefined. >>>> >>>> Mathematics is not a strength is it. Simple maths - junior school >>>> maths >>>> - you're ok with. Harder stuff you just dismiss. >>> >>> No I don't dismiss the harder stuff; I dismiss bollocks such as >>> projective geometry. It isn't mathematics it is an abstraction of >>> mathematics. >>> >> >> As I can read you like a book and anticipate your next reply: yes the >> complex plane is an abstraction and no I don't think complex number >> theory is bullshit. This is not the same kind of abstraction as made >> with projective geometry. > > So, how do you tell apart which abstractions are good and which are bad? > In my naivety I have always thought all the maths is abstractions, > basically about the same kind ... > "God made the integers, all else is the work of man" I don't think Mr. Flibble likes any mathematics that can't be described in terms of sausages. You can count sausages, so positive integers are okay. You can owe someone sausages, so negative numbers are okay. You can divide them, so rationals are okay. Basic geometry can be done with strings of sausages. But algebraic structures of sausages, functions of sausages, sausages in non-Euclidian spaces, all that is, in his mind, irrelevant. (There is nothing wrong with not being good at maths, or not knowing much about higher level maths. Some people have studied maths at university level - but most people have not. What bugs me about Mr. Flibble is not that he doesn't know much maths - it's that he thinks he knows all /real/ maths and that everything else is irrelevant nonsense.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 06:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <65915bc2-cac8-44ad-aa81-e2e931dd5920@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47431 |
On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 7:58:50 AM UTC, David Brown wrote: > What bugs me about Mr. Flibble is not that he doesn't know much maths - > it's that he thinks he knows all /real/ maths and that everything > else is irrelevant nonsense.) I agree completely with this sentiment. Incidentally, one could probably abstract projective geometry using the approximately-spherical layer of sausage meat that surrounds a scotch egg. Maybe if someone were to formulate like that....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 20:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <B8mdnfAcTcU1osXFnZ2dnUU7-W2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #47431 |
On 19/12/2016 07:58, David Brown wrote: > On 18/12/16 23:22, Paavo Helde wrote: >> On 19.12.2016 0:04, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On 18/12/2016 21:56, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On 18/12/2016 21:52, Gareth Owen wrote: >>>>> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 18/12/2016 21:15, Gareth Owen wrote: >>>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nah. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mathematics is not a strength. >>>>>> >>>>>> The bullshit branches of Mathematics are indeed not a strength mate >>>>>> because I see them for what they are: nonsense; they should be an >>>>>> adjunct to mathematics not a part of mathematics. There is no negative >>>>>> zero; and division by zero is undefined. >>>>> >>>>> Mathematics is not a strength is it. Simple maths - junior school >>>>> maths >>>>> - you're ok with. Harder stuff you just dismiss. >>>> >>>> No I don't dismiss the harder stuff; I dismiss bollocks such as >>>> projective geometry. It isn't mathematics it is an abstraction of >>>> mathematics. >>>> >>> >>> As I can read you like a book and anticipate your next reply: yes the >>> complex plane is an abstraction and no I don't think complex number >>> theory is bullshit. This is not the same kind of abstraction as made >>> with projective geometry. >> >> So, how do you tell apart which abstractions are good and which are bad? >> In my naivety I have always thought all the maths is abstractions, >> basically about the same kind ... >> > > "God made the integers, all else is the work of man" > > I don't think Mr. Flibble likes any mathematics that can't be described > in terms of sausages. You can count sausages, so positive integers are > okay. You can owe someone sausages, so negative numbers are okay. You > can divide them, so rationals are okay. Basic geometry can be done with > strings of sausages. But algebraic structures of sausages, functions of > sausages, sausages in non-Euclidian spaces, all that is, in his mind, > irrelevant. > > (There is nothing wrong with not being good at maths, or not knowing > much about higher level maths. Some people have studied maths at > university level - but most people have not. What bugs me about Mr. > Flibble is not that he doesn't know much maths - it's that he thinks he > knows all /real/ maths and that everything else is irrelevant nonsense.) Yes I agree totally: sausages are important. If it doesn't work with sausages it is woo. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | woodbrian77@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-23 10:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c292937d-c196-4694-8fd3-3db7717367f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47431 |
On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 1:58:50 AM UTC-6, David Brown wrote: > On 18/12/16 23:22, Paavo Helde wrote: > > On 19.12.2016 0:04, Mr Flibble wrote: > >> On 18/12/2016 21:56, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>> On 18/12/2016 21:52, Gareth Owen wrote: > >>>> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: > >>>> > >>>>> On 18/12/2016 21:15, Gareth Owen wrote: > >>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> writes: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Nah. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Mathematics is not a strength. > >>>>> > >>>>> The bullshit branches of Mathematics are indeed not a strength mate > >>>>> because I see them for what they are: nonsense; they should be an > >>>>> adjunct to mathematics not a part of mathematics. There is no negative > >>>>> zero; and division by zero is undefined. > >>>> > >>>> Mathematics is not a strength is it. Simple maths - junior school > >>>> maths > >>>> - you're ok with. Harder stuff you just dismiss. > >>> > >>> No I don't dismiss the harder stuff; I dismiss bollocks such as > >>> projective geometry. It isn't mathematics it is an abstraction of > >>> mathematics. > >>> > >> > >> As I can read you like a book and anticipate your next reply: yes the > >> complex plane is an abstraction and no I don't think complex number > >> theory is bullshit. This is not the same kind of abstraction as made > >> with projective geometry. > > > > So, how do you tell apart which abstractions are good and which are bad? > > In my naivety I have always thought all the maths is abstractions, > > basically about the same kind ... > > > > "God made the integers, all else is the work of man" I agree with the German astronomer Kepler when he described his mathematical work as "thinking G-d's thoughts after Him." http://inventors.about.com/od/famousinventors/fl/Johannes-Kepler-Astronomy.htm Johannes Kepler was born on December 27, 1571, in Weil der Stadt, Württemburg, ------------------------------------------------------------ Kepler sounds like he was a mensch -- a decent and humble man. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust. http://webEbenezer.net Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust. http://webEbenezer.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-23 12:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <adeb2a74-02e3-4cff-8f79-f35230c15526@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47431 |
On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 2:58:50 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote: > > "God made the integers, all else is the work of man" > Depends where you want to start. You can start with set theory, and derive the integers as equivalence classes. Mr Fliblle, as you note, starts with sausages. God, of course, is the ultimate undefined concept. Assume there is a god with some properties, and see what follows. Best regards, Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-27 10:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o3tcpc$to8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47558 |
On 23/12/16 21:08, Daniel wrote: > On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 2:58:50 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote: >> >> "God made the integers, all else is the work of man" >> > Depends where you want to start. You can start with set theory, and derive the > integers as equivalence classes. Mr Fliblle, as you note, starts with sausages. Yes, you have to start somewhere. If you pick axiomatic set theory, you can derive integers from there - but you can keep going and make rationals, reals, complex numbers, infinite cardinals and ordinals (who volunteers to explain to Mr. Flibble that the first countably infinite ordinal, ω, has 1 + ω = ω, but ω + 1 > ω ?), and any other mathematics you like. From a mathematical viewpoint, integers are as constructed as anything else. I don't think anyone has thought of a system more fundamental than set theory (from which set theory could be derived). But maybe someone will eventually. > > God, of course, is the ultimate undefined concept. Assume there is a god with some > properties, and see what follows. > > Best regards, > Daniel >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web