News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

eeojun

Re:Space Requirements for Tree Traversal on Monday October 10, 2016 @09:00AM (#12676791)
Hi, original author here. I did not expect so much discussion and awareness! Once again I have to stress that I wanted to make a very general pair of equations so I could compare the efficiency gains in other algorithms from the naive versions in an 'accurate' way. If anyone has any suggestions for the algorithms involved please let me know ([email protected]) and I'll see if it's suitable to put in. I apologise in advance if I take longer than usual to reply, A levels are a ton of work!

Also I was originally going to see how this applied to traversing really large, cross machine trees so I did not consider the algorithms that mutated the tree, but thanks for making me aware of those.

Re:Space Requirements for Tree Traversal on Monday October 10, 2016 @08:55AM (#12676766)
Oh boy, this is great. Thanks! I was not aware of this when I wrote the article/post. I started out by wanting to make a very generalised pair of expressions for the space requirements so I had to make very little assumptions and would be able compare it to efficiency gains by other algorithms/representations.

Again thanks, I'll try to include it this week end if I have the time.

Re:Space Requirements for Tree Traversal on Monday October 10, 2016 @08:49AM (#12676739)
Whoops, you're right. I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out!
Re:Space Requirements for Tree Traversal on Monday October 10, 2016 @08:49AM (#12676735)
Hi, original author here. I used "perfect" trees as I wanted to generalise it to trees of other "types", not just binary trees. But yes, you are correct that it is incomplete for the broader category of binary trees.