Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.programming
Subject: Re: on an n-element heap and its nodes of height h
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 02:28:24 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <87r3e2jsjr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <86h9ez2l43.fsf@toledo.com> <nf2o0k$gcv$1@dont-email.me> <864may3mcl.fsf@toledo.com> <nf3grm$ikg$1@dont-email.me> <87y48aju20.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nf401j$4h9$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="017616aa25f81ec581c44d76d61ba2f3"; logging-data="8085"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19bag3HMDIjkoQLUYybLNYgAgXNXufyiYE="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6BqPZT2rYnmmgcdtisRARu4jTH0= sha1:ZUOndbHOL9xKLFAf1Tf5TmUY9zo=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.028dabf658113d8f8813.20160419022824BST.87r3e2jsjr.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Xref: csiph.com comp.programming:6522

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

> On 19/04/16 01:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>
> <snip>
>>
>>> Let's show it for h = 4:
>>>
>>> 1:...........*...........
>>> 2:.....*...........*.....
>>> 3:..*.....*.....*.....*..
>>> 4:.*.*...*.*...*.*...*.*.
>>>
>>> At level 4, we have 8 = 2^(4-1) nodes, not 16 = 2^4 nodes.
>>
>> Most people would call that a tree of height 3.  I've never seen your
>> counting used for tree height, but I have led a sheltered life.
>
> One can envisage nodes in a tree as if they were rooms in a building,
> and the height is the number of storeys. h=4
>
> One can envisage nodes in a tree as if they were posts in a fence, and
> the height is the number of fence-rails you need. h=3

One could, but why would one?  Why is that analogy better than others
where height is usually a measured length?  Or, more exactly, given that
there is an established usage, are the benefits of your usage enough to
outweigh the resulting confusion?  At the moment I see no advantages at
all.

Do you use the same counting for depth?  Does the root have depth 1?

> Both make sense. I think my way makes more sense, but then I would,
> wouldn't I?

Starting out saying "no" is a bit strong then!  Saying "There are two
ways to measure the height and I'm using the less usual one" wouldn't
have been so confrontational.

-- 
Ben.