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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA 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 pz6mr7893429pbc.3.1340474758369; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 11:05:58 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni11498pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news3.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Niklas Holsti Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Recapping on =?windows-1252?Q?=93Bug_Sort=94=2E?= Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:05:56 +0300 Organization: Tidorum Ltd Message-ID: References: <169bdbcb-cb43-4db9-9d48-3be2a88473eb@googlegroups.com> <77963856-3a25-4477-9510-769df7a9b85c@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: individual.net y99wbMS4FiFut8iOLGKO6QFtWEvMwBvVfcQD4DxKvHFUNfPDMNakJR0YrpJ+969T52 Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZhSp7avvqcDZZKUd7ojKrbVMC/4= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 In-Reply-To: <77963856-3a25-4477-9510-769df7a9b85c@googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: 2012-06-23T21:05:56+03:00 List-Id: On 12-06-23 13:20 , 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. Austin, While I agree with Jeff that you have rediscovered Counting Sort, this does not mean that you are being accused of plagiarism. It is common for programmers to rediscover algorithms that are basically simple, but very good for some special cases -- and perhaps for just these reasons are not very well known. I could imagine posing this sorting problem (sorting a dense set of numbers in a known, not too wide range) in a class on programming (not an advanced class, either) and would expect some of the students to use this method (i.e. Counting Sort) in their solutions. > Update on performance. > > 42750 seven-digit positive integers were sorted in between 1 and 2 seconds. > > Waiting to hear regarding "Count Sort". Since your method is an implementation of Counting Sort, you are actually measuring "Counting Sort", at least in one implementation. -- Niklas Holsti Tidorum Ltd niklas holsti tidorum fi . @ .