From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD2, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,e0c23e7a19a435c4 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252 Received: by 10.68.238.65 with SMTP id vi1mr6409689pbc.7.1340438093339; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni9875pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Austin Obyrne Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Recapping_on_=93Bug_Sort=94=2E?= Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <169bdbcb-cb43-4db9-9d48-3be2a88473eb@googlegroups.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 31.52.108.135 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1340438093 10425 127.0.0.1 (23 Jun 2012 07:54:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:54:53 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=31.52.108.135; posting-account=pmkN8QoAAAAtIhXRUfydb0SCISnwaeyg User-Agent: G2/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-06-23T00:54:52-07:00 List-Id: On Friday, June 22, 2012 9:45:53 PM UTC+1, Jeffrey Carter wrote: > On 06/22/2012 12:55 PM, Austin Obyrne wrote: > > > > I have been told that my program resembles a known sort program called > > =93Counting Sort=94. I would hate to be guilty of plagiarism and I wou= ld like to > > point out therefore that the salient thing about my =93Parallel Sort=94= is that > > my implementation is geared to capturing data during any unrelated prog= ram > > run-time and assigning the data in such a way that the separate element= s > > index their own addresses in the sorting arrays. A similarity with som= e > > other existing paper algorithm is simply fortuitous. >=20 > What you have presented is an implementation of counting sort, nothing mo= re.=20 > There is nothing new or unique about your implementation. >=20 > --=20 > Jeff Carter > "Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, > public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system, > and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" > Monty Python's Life of Brian > 80 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfron= t.net --- There is no question of kudos-grabbing by me in this matter - I have alread= y invented a world first in unbreakable cryptography that is here to stay, = this is merely a useful adjunct to that so I am not exactly starving for at= tention. see "Skew Line Encryptions - The Eventual Cipher" http://www.adacrypt.com/introduction.html There is a lot of 'dredging' for links going on these days that often are s= uspect assertions that have no properly established credence. Even Wikiped= ia has to taken with a measured pinch of salt at the end of the day -the lo= w-hanging fruit to many visitors but its usually only a starting point for = further study by seriously minded people. Because it is in print does not make a claim fire proof. Unless "Count Sort" can deliver then it is not right to say it is an establ= isheed sort prog - it is derogatory to my invention in fact to make compari= sons unless it can be backed up with stronger performance figures otherwise= it is nothing more than a static paper sort program.=20 In this day and age the onus is on the claimant to deliver fresh claims as = a working computerised program since that is how it will be expected to run= in reality - this must be demonstrated in lieu of mathemtaical proof which= is impossible to do very often. It doesn't matter to me how highly regarded my invention does become - I am= already on the score board for better reasons. PS - I have just done a test run on my "Parallel Sort" program invention us= ing my very ordinary home computer and the results are:-=20 28500 seven-digit positive integers were sorted in less than 1 second. The = crucial test part of the program was timed for that test as being the de fa= cto sorting implement. Can "Count Sort" beat that ? Dredging for links in the internet is a poor substitute for proper intellig= ent research. When these links surface they still need to be demonstrated = properly and not accepted simply because they have appeared as link to some= one's website and are quotable for that reason.=20 Best Wishes. Austin O'Byrne.