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 10.68.196.232 with SMTP id ip8mr7377519pbc.6.1340461727205; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:28:47 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni10908pbj.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 07:21:26 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <169bdbcb-cb43-4db9-9d48-3be2a88473eb@googlegroups.com> <77963856-3a25-4477-9510-769df7a9b85c@googlegroups.com> <5324c10f-52f2-4f23-ac44-cd1bc9fa580d@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 31.52.108.135 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1340461724 23141 127.0.0.1 (23 Jun 2012 14:28:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:28:44 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <5324c10f-52f2-4f23-ac44-cd1bc9fa580d@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: 2012-06-23T07:21:26-07:00 List-Id: 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 c= alled > > > > > =93Counting Sort=94. I would hate to be guilty of plagiarism and= I would like to > > > > > point out therefore that the salient thing about my =93Parallel S= ort=94 is that > > > > > my implementation is geared to capturing data during any unrelate= d program > > > > > run-time and assigning the data in such a way that the separate e= lements > > > > > index their own addresses in the sorting arrays. A similarity wi= th some > > > > > other existing paper algorithm is simply fortuitous. > > > >=20 > > > > What you have presented is an implementation of counting sort, noth= ing 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@n= etfront.net --- > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > 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. > > >=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 W= ikipedia 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 poin= t for 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 = establisheed sort prog - it is derogatory to my invention in fact to make c= omparisons unless it can be backed up with stronger performance figures oth= erwise 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 clai= ms 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. > > >=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 invent= ion using my very ordinary home computer and the results are:-=20 > > >=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 facto sorting implement. > > >=20 > > > Can "Count Sort" beat that ? > > >=20 > > > Dredging for links in the internet is a poor substitute for proper in= telligent research. When these links surface they still need to be demonst= rated properly and not accepted simply because they have appeared as link t= o someone's website and are quotable for that reason.=20 > > >=20 > > > Best Wishes. > > >=20 > > > Austin O'Byrne. > >=20 > > Update on performance. > >=20 > > 42750 seven-digit positive integers were sorted in between 1 and 2 seco= nds. > >=20 > > Waiting to hear regarding "Count Sort". > >=20 > > - adacrypt >=20 > Update on performance. >=20 > This time takes into account:=20 >=20 > Collecting the data. sorting the data and reading back the data. >=20 > 85,550 seven-digit positive integers took 12 seconds. >=20 > 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 hosti= ng program. >=20 > Austin O'Byrne. Final update on performance. These are the results:=20 14250 seven-digit positive integers 1 - 2 secs=20 28500 "" "" "" "" 1 - 2 secs=20 42750 "" "" "" "" 1 - 2 secs=20 85500 "" "" "" "" 2 - 3 secs=20 Austin O'Byrne. Clearly, these are extraordinary times for a sort program.=20 (the measuring method isn't sensitive enough to give more exact times.)=20