@DK Hmm, i do understand what you said. Maybe, i should make it clear that i just wanted to tell that implementing a non-recursive merge-sort will not require explicit stacks and is actually easier to implement. This was because someone mentioned using stacks to remove recursion. I didn't mean to tell anything more than that. :)
On Aug 7, 3:07 pm, DK <[email protected]> wrote: > @Amit and @Immanuel: You're not getting the point. Merge sort is not > in-place because it requires an extra O(N) array during the merge step. > The problem asks not to remove the recursive nature of the merge-sort but to > remove the non-in-place nature of merge sort by removing the need for that > extra array. This is a research problem that has been solved and there have > been multiple papers on the topic. I've posted the earliest one that forms > the basis of this field. > > -- > DK > > http://gplus.to/divyekapoorhttp://twitter.com/divyekapoorhttp://www.divye.in -- 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?hl=en.
