Timeline for Sort an array in a specific order - not ascending/descending
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:01 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Aug 27, 2013 at 13:28 | comment | added | Hameer Abbasi |
Marked as answer again for being closer to the exact algorithm. I didn't consider a self-balancing BST, or a Balance() function at all.
|
|
| Aug 27, 2013 at 13:27 | vote | accept | Hameer Abbasi | ||
| Aug 27, 2013 at 7:14 | history | edited | Bernhard Barker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 72 characters in body
|
| Aug 24, 2013 at 5:39 | comment | added | Hameer Abbasi | +1 I don't think any kind of sorting algorithm has been made better than O(n log n). You just reduced my problem to that. Kudos! Marked yours as the answer for being the simplest here. | |
| Aug 24, 2013 at 5:37 | vote | accept | Hameer Abbasi | ||
| Aug 25, 2013 at 3:13 | |||||
| Aug 13, 2013 at 12:27 | comment | added | John R. Strohm | That'll work. The key is that the current tree node defines one endpoint of a fully-closed interval, and either the left or right child defines the other endpoint of the interval. The closest value will be found somewhere in that interval. Actually, it will either be the current node, the child, or somewhere in subtree "between" the node and child. (I.e., in the subsequence between the node value and the child node value, in an inorder traverse.) | |
| Aug 13, 2013 at 10:01 | comment | added | COME FROM | +1: Better than my answer. | |
| Aug 13, 2013 at 9:05 | history | edited | Bernhard Barker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 244 characters in body
|
| Aug 13, 2013 at 8:52 | history | answered | Bernhard Barker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |