News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Linked List Problems (2002) [pdf] by adamwk on Saturday November 25, 2017 @01:36PM (#15777173)
Then why is tortoise and the hair credited to Floyd if it’s so trivial?
Re:Linked List Problems (2002) [pdf] by catnaroek on Saturday November 25, 2017 @01:42PM (#15777204)
Attribution in science works in mysterious ways, and I don't claim to know how it works.

In any case, I didn't say “trivial”. If you can only derive trivial things, then you shouldn't be a computer scientist.

Re:Linked List Problems (2002) [pdf] by varjag on Saturday November 25, 2017 @02:47PM (#15777607)
Are you suggesting computer scientists should be able to derive non trivial results on job interviews? Really?
Re:Linked List Problems (2002) [pdf] by catnaroek on Saturday November 25, 2017 @02:52PM (#15777628)
This amount of nontrivial, yes. Similarly, I'd expect a computer scientist to come up with a proof of correctness for either binary search or merge sort (the out of place variant) in ~30 minutes. It's not particularly difficult.
Re:Linked List Problems (2002) [pdf] by microtherion on Sunday November 26, 2017 @04:56AM (#15780198)
The number of incorrect binary search algorithms published in the literature over the years would indicate otherwise…

I agree that reasoning about the correctness of a binary search algorithm is an important job skill for a computer scientist. Deriving the tortoise and hare algorithm on the fly, though, is not.