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 10.68.220.230 with SMTP id pz6mr6830409pbc.3.1340447826945; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 03:37:06 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni10310pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.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 03:20:10 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <77963856-3a25-4477-9510-769df7a9b85c@googlegroups.com> References: <169bdbcb-cb43-4db9-9d48-3be2a88473eb@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 31.52.108.135 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1340447826 11598 127.0.0.1 (23 Jun 2012 10:37:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:37:06 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <169bdbcb-cb43-4db9-9d48-3be2a88473eb@googlegroups.com> 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: 2012-06-23T03:20:10-07:00 List-Id: 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 calle= d > > > =93Counting Sort=94. I would hate to be guilty of plagiarism and I w= ould 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 pr= ogram > > > run-time and assigning the data in such a way that the separate eleme= nts > > > index their own addresses in the sorting arrays. A similarity with s= ome > > > other existing paper algorithm is simply fortuitous. > >=20 > > What you have presented is an implementation of counting sort, nothing = more.=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@netfr= ont.net --- >=20 >=20 > There is no question of kudos-grabbing by me in this matter - I have alre= ady 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. >=20 > see "Skew Line Encryptions - The Eventual Cipher" >=20 > http://www.adacrypt.com/introduction.html >=20 > There is a lot of 'dredging' for links going on these days that often are= suspect assertions that have no properly established credence. Even Wikip= edia 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 fo= r further study by seriously minded people. >=20 > Because it is in print does not make a claim fire proof. >=20 > Unless "Count Sort" can deliver then it is not right to say it is an esta= blisheed sort prog - it is derogatory to my invention in fact to make compa= risons unless it can be backed up with stronger performance figures otherwi= se it is nothing more than a static paper sort program.=20 >=20 > In this day and age the onus is on the claimant to deliver fresh claims a= s a working computerised program since that is how it will be expected to r= un in reality - this must be demonstrated in lieu of mathemtaical proof whi= ch is impossible to do very often. >=20 > It doesn't matter to me how highly regarded my invention does become - I = am already on the score board for better reasons. >=20 > PS - I have just done a test run on my "Parallel Sort" program invention = using my very ordinary home computer and the results are:-=20 >=20 > 28500 seven-digit positive integers were sorted in less than 1 second. Th= e crucial test part of the program was timed for that test as being the de = facto sorting implement. >=20 > Can "Count Sort" beat that ? >=20 > Dredging for links in the internet is a poor substitute for proper intell= igent research. When these links surface they still need to be demonstrate= d properly and not accepted simply because they have appeared as link to so= meone's website and are quotable for that reason.=20 >=20 > Best Wishes. >=20 > 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