Message-ID: <6M5-4oabJaB@09.viking.ruhr.com>
X-Gateway: ZCONNECT UU viking.ruhr.com [DUUCP BETA vom 06.11.1996]
References: <57hi6b$r68@news.utdallas.edu> <57j5dh$sh3$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <E1ouwy.1JC@research.att.com>
From: roc@viking.ruhr.com (Rolf Czedzak)
Subject: Re: Mergesort: why's it efficient?
Date: 02 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!portc02.blue.aol.com!howland.erols.net!blackbush.xlink.net!ins.net!viking.ruhr.com!roc
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.sys.mac.programmer.help,comp.lang.lisp
Distribution: world
Lines: 19
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:230611 comp.sys.mac.programmer.help:44379 comp.lang.lisp:23989

Andrew Koenig  wrote:          <E1ouwy.1JC@research.att.com>

AK> In article <57j5dh$sh3$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
AK> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: 
AK> 
AK> > Anyone who is sure that O(N) expected time sorting cannot be done
AK> > for realistic problems, in the absence of prior knowledge of the
AK> > distribution, is certainly wrong.
AK> 
AK> For realistic problems, there is little difference between O(N)
AK> and O(N log N), because there is usually a constant upper bound
AK> on N (for example, the number of possible values of a pointer).

Your argument pushes _any_ 'realistic problem' into class O(1).

AK> 				--Andrew Koenig
AK> 				  ark@research.att.com

Rolf
