@DK and Amit, thanks for correcting my understanding.
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 3:51 PM, amit karmakar <[email protected]>wrote: > @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. > > -- 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.
