Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #5525
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: Some observations about "data structure complexity" |
| Date | 2015-07-28 00:53 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <87vbd5xin7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <f6a75c74-49b2-4f7f-b66e-c3adf367cb6d@googlegroups.com> |
joshipura@gmail.com writes: <snip> > Question 3. Is this what we mean when we say "data structure A is more > complex than data structure B"? If there is a subset of instances of A that are isomorphic to all the instances of B, then it is reasonable to say that A is more complex than B. This is not a full answer (there many be other factors that people consider important to "complexity") but it does answer your initial question about why trees are considered more complex that lists: a subset of trees is isomorphic to the set of lists. -- Ben.
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Some observations about "data structure complexity" joshipura@gmail.com - 2015-07-27 07:54 -0700
Re: Some observations about "data structure complexity" "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-07-27 19:24 +0200
Re: Some observations about "data structure complexity" Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-28 00:53 +0100
Re: Some observations about "data structure complexity" "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-07-28 09:54 +0200
csiph-web