On Aug 25, 2:00 pm, wbspresslyjr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are mixing up implementation with theory here. The study of
I would argue that neither of us are mixing up anything. I agree, that
in the infinite sense, an O(n) solution is absurd. However, the reason
I pointed to the trail of messages is that I clarified on what my
solution is based.
> Algorithms is a rigorous and abstract field. Note the use of the word
> abstract... This means that we are not talking about computers (32bit,
> 64bit)... we are talking about the nature of mathematics and problem
> solving...
I agree. However, knowledge is useless unless it can be applied to
something.
> ever, on any machine theoretical or otherwise... Does your solution
> have this character? No. The size of your hash table changes. It is
> not constant.
It is constant for a given problem. I've already explained the context
of my answer more than is necessary.
>
> Perhaps you should heed the words of Dijkstra: "Computer science is no
> more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
Look, fancy phrases and quotes are great; they tend toward
inspiration. However, like I mentioned earlier, there is no use for
knowledge without application.
This is a redundant argument. Yes, you can prove that there is no
answer in the infinite scope. Yes, I can prove that there is in the
finite scope. Is either one of us right? It depends on the setting. I
can implement a solution the problem as it would exist in a real-world
scenario, you can prove that I cant do that.
Where does that leave us?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Algorithm Geeks" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
