Re: on an n-element heap and its nodes of height h

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	2016-04-19 02:28 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<87r3e2jsjr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <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>

Show all headers | View raw

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.

Thread

on an n-element heap and its nodes of height h Daniel Bastos <dbastos@toledo.com> - 2016-04-18 08:48 -0300
  Re: on an n-element heap and its nodes of height h Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-04-18 08:08 -0400
  Re: on an n-element heap and its nodes of height h Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-04-18 05:47 -0700
    Re: on an n-element heap and its nodes of height h Daniel Bastos <dbastos@toledo.com> - 2016-04-18 13:56 -0300
  Re: on an n-element heap and its nodes of height h Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-18 14:41 +0100
    Re: on an n-element heap and its nodes of height h Daniel Bastos <dbastos@toledo.com> - 2016-04-18 13:36 -0300
      Re: on an n-element heap and its nodes of height h Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-18 21:45 +0100
        Re: on an n-element heap and its nodes of height h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-19 01:55 +0100
          Re: on an n-element heap and its nodes of height h Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-19 02:05 +0100
            Re: on an n-element heap and its nodes of height h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-19 02:28 +0100
              Re: on an n-element heap and its nodes of height h Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-19 02:30 +0100
                Re: on an n-element heap and its nodes of height h Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-04-18 21:24 -0700
                Re: on an n-element heap and its nodes of height h Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-04-19 09:23 +0100
                Re: on an n-element heap and its nodes of height h Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-20 11:01 +0100

csiph-web