> Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote:
> : ... the one who told me about that said also something that prooves, the
> : termination of the algorithm' if a GOOD! randomizer is used ...
>
>   I have the feeling that it's not possible to make algorithmically a
> random number generator that is so good that the array gets sorted in a
> finite time for any finite array size. I might be wrong, of course.
>
> : I don't really know, but I think it has a kewl runtime ;-)
>
>   Even with a perfect random number generator it sounds like the average
> runtime would be infinite... Weird.
hehe ... sounds kewl:

the average! runtime is infinite ... (of course, I think so) but:
this would mean, that if there are cases with runtime < oo then there have
to be other cases with a runtime > oo, but what is greater than oo ??? Yes
there certain qualities of infinity, but if you think the normal way and not
in such a mathematically weird way *g*
...

--
Jan Walzer ...

Post a reply to this message