Re: Recapping on “Bug Sort”.

[Austin Obyrne <austin.obyrne@hotmail.com>]

On Saturday, June 23, 2012 3:21:26 PM UTC+1, Austin Obyrne wrote:
> On Saturday, June 23, 2012 2:08:58 PM UTC+1, Austin Obyrne wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:20:10 AM UTC+1, Austin Obyrne wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:54:52 AM UTC+1, Austin Obyrne wrote:
> > > > 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
> > > > > > “Counting Sort”.  I would hate to be guilty of plagiarism and I would like to
> > > > > > point out therefore that the salient thing about my “Parallel Sort” is that
> > > > > > my implementation is geared to capturing data during any unrelated program
> > > > > > run-time and assigning the data in such a way that the separate elements
> > > > > > index their own addresses in the sorting arrays.  A similarity with some
> > > > > > other existing paper algorithm is simply fortuitous.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What you have presented is an implementation of counting sort, nothing more. 
> > > > > There is nothing new or unique about your implementation.
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > 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
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > There is no question of kudos-grabbing by me in this matter - I have already 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 attention.
> > > > 
> > > > 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 suspect assertions that have no properly established credence.  Even Wikipedia has to taken with a measured pinch of salt at the end of the day -the low-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 establisheed sort prog - it is derogatory to my invention in fact to make comparisons unless it can be backed up with stronger performance figures otherwise it is nothing more than a static paper sort program. 
> > > > 
> > > > 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 using my very ordinary home computer and the results are:- 
> > > > 
> > > > 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 facto sorting implement.
> > > > 
> > > > Can "Count Sort" beat that ?
> > > > 
> > > > Dredging for links in the internet is a poor substitute for proper intelligent research.  When these links surface they still need to be demonstrated properly and not accepted simply because they have appeared as link to someone's website and are quotable for that reason. 
> > > > 
> > > > Best Wishes.
> > > > 
> > > > Austin O'Byrne.
> > > 
> > > Update on performance.
> > > 
> > > 42750 seven-digit positive integers were sorted in between 1 and 2 seconds.
> > > 
> > > Waiting to hear regarding "Count Sort".
> > > 
> > > - adacrypt
> > 
> > Update on performance.
> > 
> > This time takes into account: 
> > 
> > Collecting the data. sorting the data and reading back the data.
> > 
> > 85,550 seven-digit positive integers took 12 seconds.
> > 
> > In a real world program one could say that 7000 values per second can be sorted as they are assigned in parallel to a particular variable in a hosting program.
> > 
> > Austin O'Byrne.
> 
> Final update on performance.
> 
> These are the results: 
> 
> 14250 seven-digit positive integers 1 - 2 secs 
> 
> 28500 "" "" "" "" 1 - 2 secs 
> 
> 42750 "" "" "" "" 1 - 2 secs 
> 
> 85500 "" "" "" "" 2 - 3 secs 
> 
> Austin O'Byrne.
> Clearly, these are extraordinary times for a sort program. 
> (the measuring method isn't sensitive enough to give more exact times.)

My earlier prediction might yet become true i.e. this implementation of "Parallel Sort" in Ada could well become a benchmark for future sort programs.

Austin O'Byrne