largest no

[bele_harshad2006]

how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

[Joachim Schmitz]

<be**************@yahoo.co.inschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:11**********************@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...

how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

By copmaring the first with the send, then the larted of that comparisn with
the 3rd, the larger of that with the 4th and so on until the 25th

Bye, Jojo

[mark_bluemel]

On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:

how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

Step 1. Sort the columns of each row into ascending order.
Step 2. Sort the rows into ascending order using the last column as
the key.
Step 3. Pick the last column of the last row.

[Richard Heathfield]

ma**********@pobox.com said:

On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:

>how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

Step 1. Sort the columns of each row into ascending order.
Step 2. Sort the rows into ascending order using the last column as
the key.
Step 3. Pick the last column of the last row.

I'm sure we can do better than O(c log c + r log r). Perhaps we should
specify a particular sort. That can get us right up to O(c^2 + r^2)
without any major effort. But can anyone find an exponential-time
algorithm?

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[mark_bluemel]

On 6 Jun, 11:29, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

[e-mail] said:

On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:

how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

Step 1. Sort the columns of each row into ascending order.
Step 2. Sort the rows into ascending order using the last column as
the key.
Step 3. Pick the last column of the last row.

I'm sure we can do better than O(c log c + r log r). Perhaps we should
specify a particular sort. That can get us right up to O(c^2 + r^2)
without any major effort. But can anyone find an exponential-time
algorithm?

There's a big problem here, though - how can we sort anything when we
don't know how to tell whether one thing is larger than another?

[Joachim Schmitz]

<ma**********@pobox.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:11*********************@o5g2000hsb.googlegrou ps.com...

On 6 Jun, 11:29, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

> [e-mail] said:

On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:
how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

Step 1. Sort the columns of each row into ascending order.
Step 2. Sort the rows into ascending order using the last column as
the key.
Step 3. Pick the last column of the last row.

I'm sure we can do better than O(c log c + r log r). Perhaps we should
specify a particular sort. That can get us right up to O(c^2 + r^2)
without any major effort. But can anyone find an exponential-time
algorithm?

There's a big problem here, though - how can we sort anything when we
don't know how to tell whether one thing is larger than another?

Hmm, the OP talked abut 'no' wich I assume to mean 'number', so it probably
is some integral or floating point number, which are fairly easy to find the
larger.

Bye, Jojo

[mark_bluemel]

On 6 Jun, 12:25, "Joachim Schmitz" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

<[e-mail] im Newsbeitragnews:11*********************@o5g2000hsb .googlegroups.com...

On 6 Jun, 11:29, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

[e-mail] said:

On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:
how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

Step 1. Sort the columns of each row into ascending order.
Step 2. Sort the rows into ascending order using the last column as
the key.
Step 3. Pick the last column of the last row.

I'm sure we can do better than O(c log c + r log r). Perhaps we should
specify a particular sort. That can get us right up to O(c^2 + r^2)
without any major effort. But can anyone find an exponential-time
algorithm?

There's a big problem here, though - how can we sort anything when we
don't know how to tell whether one thing is larger than another?

Hmm, the OP talked abut 'no' wich I assume to mean 'number', so it probably
is some integral or floating point number, which are fairly easy to find the
larger.

Finding the largest value in some set is a trivial extension of
finding which of two values is the larger - if the OP wanted us to
write code to do the former, it implies they probably can't do the
latter...

[Joachim Schmitz]

<ma**********@pobox.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:11*********************@p47g2000hsd.googlegro ups.com...

On 6 Jun, 12:25, "Joachim Schmitz" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

><[e-mail] im
Newsbeitragnews:11*********************@o5g2000hs b.googlegroups.com...

On 6 Jun, 11:29, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:
[e-mail] said:

On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:
how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

Step 1. Sort the columns of each row into ascending order.
Step 2. Sort the rows into ascending order using the last column as
the key.
Step 3. Pick the last column of the last row.

>I'm sure we can do better than O(c log c + r log r). Perhaps we should
specify a particular sort. That can get us right up to O(c^2 + r^2)
without any major effort. But can anyone find an exponential-time
algorithm?

There's a big problem here, though - how can we sort anything when we
don't know how to tell whether one thing is larger than another?

Hmm, the OP talked abut 'no' wich I assume to mean 'number', so it
probably
is some integral or floating point number, which are fairly easy to find
the
larger.

Finding the largest value in some set is a trivial extension of
finding which of two values is the larger - if the OP wanted us to
write code to do the former, it implies they probably can't do the
latter...

To me it sounds like a homework assignment...

[CBFalconer]

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

<ma**********@pobox.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag

.... snip ...

>>
Finding the largest value in some set is a trivial extension of
finding which of two values is the larger - if the OP wanted us
to write code to do the former, it implies they probably can't
do the latter...

To me it sounds like a homework assignment...

No! I can't imagine a student trying to pull such a scurvy trick.
Couldn't possibly be true!

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
<http://kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[CBFalconer]

ma**********@pobox.com wrote:

Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

> [e-mail] said:

>>On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:

how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

>>Step 1. Sort the columns of each row into ascending order.
Step 2. Sort the rows into ascending order using the last column as
the key.
Step 3. Pick the last column of the last row.

I'm sure we can do better than O(c log c + r log r). Perhaps we
should specify a particular sort. That can get us right up to
O(c^2 + r^2) without any major effort. But can anyone find an
exponential-time algorithm?

There's a big problem here, though - how can we sort anything when
we don't know how to tell whether one thing is larger than another?

You apparantly totally missed the humor involved in RH's post.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
<http://kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Joachim Schmitz]

"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:46***************@yahoo.com...

ma**********@pobox.com wrote:

>Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

>> [e-mail] said:
On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:

how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

Step 1. Sort the columns of each row into ascending order.
Step 2. Sort the rows into ascending order using the last column as
the key.
Step 3. Pick the last column of the last row.

I'm sure we can do better than O(c log c + r log r). Perhaps we
should specify a particular sort. That can get us right up to
O(c^2 + r^2) without any major effort. But can anyone find an
exponential-time algorithm?

There's a big problem here, though - how can we sort anything when
we don't know how to tell whether one thing is larger than another?

You apparantly totally missed the humor involved in RH's post.

Me too I must admit. Isn't that what smileys have been invented for?

Bye, Jojo

[Keith Thompson]

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

ma**********@pobox.com said:

>On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:

>>how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

Step 1. Sort the columns of each row into ascending order.
Step 2. Sort the rows into ascending order using the last column as
the key.
Step 3. Pick the last column of the last row.

I'm sure we can do better than O(c log c + r log r). Perhaps we should
specify a particular sort. That can get us right up to O(c^2 + r^2)
without any major effort. But can anyone find an exponential-time
algorithm?

Google "permutation sort".

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Denis Kasak]

On 06/06/2007 18:29, Joachim Schmitz wrote:

"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:46***************@yahoo.com...

>ma**********@pobox.com wrote:

>>Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:
[e-mail] said:
On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:
>
>how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

Step 1. Sort the columns of each row into ascending order.
Step 2. Sort the rows into ascending order using the last column as
the key.
Step 3. Pick the last column of the last row.

I'm sure we can do better than O(c log c + r log r). Perhaps we
should specify a particular sort. That can get us right up to
O(c^2 + r^2) without any major effort. But can anyone find an
exponential-time algorithm?

There's a big problem here, though - how can we sort anything when
we don't know how to tell whether one thing is larger than another?

You apparantly totally missed the humor involved in RH's post.

Me too I must admit. Isn't that what smileys have been invented for?

A smiley would ruin the joke considerably, I must say.

--
Denis Kasak

[Tor Rustad]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

ma**********@pobox.com said:

>On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:

>>how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

I'm sure we can do better than O(c log c + r log r). Perhaps we should
specify a particular sort. That can get us right up to O(c^2 + r^2)
without any major effort. But can anyone find an exponential-time
algorithm?

Arrgh.. exponential-time??! The worst sorting algorithms I know, are
O(N^2). :-/

I can't remember Knuth or Sedgewick, discussing anything worse than that.

Give a hint please..

--
Tor <torust [at] online [dot] no>

[Richard Heathfield]

Tor Rustad said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

> ma**********@pobox.com said:

>>On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:
how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

>I'm sure we can do better than O(c log c + r log r). Perhaps we
should specify a particular sort. That can get us right up to O(c^2 +
r^2) without any major effort. But can anyone find an
exponential-time algorithm?

Arrgh.. exponential-time??! The worst sorting algorithms I know, are
O(N^2). :-/

I can't remember Knuth or Sedgewick, discussing anything worse than
that.

Give a hint please..

Well, let's see now...

while not sorted
exchange two elements at random
endwhile

That would do it, I think.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Keith Thompson]

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrites:

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

> ma**********@pobox.com said:

>>On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:
how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

Step 1. Sort the columns of each row into ascending order.
Step 2. Sort the rows into ascending order using the last column as
the key.
Step 3. Pick the last column of the last row.

I'm sure we can do better than O(c log c + r log r). Perhaps we should
specify a particular sort. That can get us right up to O(c^2 + r^2)
without any major effort. But can anyone find an exponential-time
algorithm?

Google "permutation sort".

Sorry, permutation sort isn't exponential-time. (It's worse.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Joe Wright]

be**************@yahoo.co.in wrote:

how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

No matrices in C, sorry. We do have arrays though. Consider..

int arr[5][5];

Does this satisfy your description of a matrix?

The arr array has 25 elements. We can find the largest of them by simply
tripping through the array comparing 'this' one to the previously larger
one. The position of the largest element in the array might also be of
interest. Consider..

int i, j, r, c, max = 0;

for (i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
for (j = 0; j < 5; ++j)
if (arr[i][j] max) {
max = arr[i][j];
r = i, c = j;
}

When this finishes, max will hold the largest int and r and c will tell
you where it is. And very quickly.

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---

[Keith Thompson]

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

Tor Rustad said:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>> ma**********@pobox.com said:
On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:
how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

>>I'm sure we can do better than O(c log c + r log r). Perhaps we
should specify a particular sort. That can get us right up to O(c^2 +
r^2) without any major effort. But can anyone find an
exponential-time algorithm?

Arrgh.. exponential-time??! The worst sorting algorithms I know, are
O(N^2). :-/

I can't remember Knuth or Sedgewick, discussing anything worse than
that.

Give a hint please..

Well, let's see now...

while not sorted
exchange two elements at random
endwhile

That would do it, I think.

If the exchanges are truly random, that's not guaranteed to terminate,
so it doesn't qualify as an algorithm.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[CBFalconer]

Tor Rustad wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>ma**********@pobox.com said:

>>On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:

how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix???

>I'm sure we can do better than O(c log c + r log r). Perhaps we
should specify a particular sort. That can get us right up to
O(c^2 + r^2) without any major effort. But can anyone find an
exponential-time algorithm?

Arrgh.. exponential-time??! The worst sorting algorithms I know,
are O(N^2). :-/

I can't remember Knuth or Sedgewick, discussing anything worse
than that.

Give a hint please..

I don't know the O(), but try simply rearranging the sortee at
random, then check if sorted. If not, repeat.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
<http://kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[CBFalconer]

Keith Thompson wrote:

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>Tor Rustad said:

.... snip ...

>>

>>Arrgh.. exponential-time??! The worst sorting algorithms I know,
are O(N^2). :-/

I can't remember Knuth or Sedgewick, discussing anything worse
than that.

Give a hint please..

Well, let's see now...

while not sorted
exchange two elements at random
endwhile

That would do it, I think.

If the exchanges are truly random, that's not guaranteed to
terminate, so it doesn't qualify as an algorithm.

Yes it is, given sufficient time and a really random generator :-)

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
<http://kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Keith Thompson]

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:

Keith Thompson wrote:

>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>>Tor Rustad said:

... snip ...

>>>
Arrgh.. exponential-time??! The worst sorting algorithms I know,
are O(N^2). :-/

I can't remember Knuth or Sedgewick, discussing anything worse
than that.

Give a hint please..

Well, let's see now...

while not sorted
exchange two elements at random
endwhile

That would do it, I think.

If the exchanges are truly random, that's not guaranteed to
terminate, so it doesn't qualify as an algorithm.

Yes it is, given sufficient time and a really random generator :-)

No, it's not. A truly random generator can generate any possible
sequence, including a sequence that causes the code to repeatedly swap
the first two elements forever. The worst-case behavior is that it
never terminates.

It isn't certain to terminate, but it terminates in some finite time
with probability 1. I *think* that's right. In any case, this
stopped being about C some time ago.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Clark Cox]

On 2007-06-06 20:18:36 -0700, CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comsaid:

Keith Thompson wrote:

>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>>Tor Rustad said:

... snip ...

>>>
Arrgh.. exponential-time??! The worst sorting algorithms I know,
are O(N^2). :-/

I can't remember Knuth or Sedgewick, discussing anything worse
than that.

Give a hint please..

Well, let's see now...

while not sorted
exchange two elements at random
endwhile

That would do it, I think.

If the exchanges are truly random, that's not guaranteed to
terminate, so it doesn't qualify as an algorithm.

Yes it is, given sufficient time and a really random generator :-)

No, given a truly random number generator, the probability that it will
terminate *approaches* 100% as time approaches infinity. However you
never have an absolute guarantee that it will terminate as there is a
non-zero chance that , for instance, the sequence of numbers is nothing
but the number 42 repeated an infinite number of times.
--
Clark S. Cox III
cl*******@gmail.com

[mark_bluemel]

On 6 Jun, 17:29, "Joachim Schmitz" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

"CBFalconer" <[e-mail] im Newsbeitragnews:46***************@yahoo.com...

[e-mail] wrote:

Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:
[e-mail] said:
On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:

>>>how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

>>Step 1. Sort the columns of each row into ascending order.
Step 2. Sort the rows into ascending order using the last column as
the key.
Step 3. Pick the last column of the last row.

>I'm sure we can do better than O(c log c + r log r). Perhaps we
should specify a particular sort. That can get us right up to
O(c^2 + r^2) without any major effort. But can anyone find an
exponential-time algorithm?

There's a big problem here, though - how can we sort anything when
we don't know how to tell whether one thing is larger than another?

You apparantly totally missed the humor involved in RH's post.

I didn't.

Me too I must admit. Isn't that what smileys have been invented for?

As Denis points out, that would ruin the joke. "Dry" humour and irony
(both rather British) should never be sullied with emoticons.

[mark_bluemel]

On 7 Jun, 02:19, Joe Wright <[e-mail]:

[e-mail] wrote:

how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

No matrices in C, sorry. We do have arrays though. Consider..

int arr[5][5];

Does this satisfy your description of a matrix?

The arr array has 25 elements. We can find the largest of them by simply
tripping through the array comparing 'this' one to the previously larger
one. The position of the largest element in the array might also be of
interest. Consider..

int i, j, r, c, max = 0;

Did the problem statement indicate that the numbers were necessarily
positive?

>
for (i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
for (j = 0; j < 5; ++j)
if (arr[i][j] max) {
max = arr[i][j];
r = i, c = j;
}

When this finishes, max will hold the largest int and r and c will tell
you where it is. And very quickly.

<Identity=OriginalPoster>
Thank you for that solution. I got full marks on the assignment. My
instructor was impressed with my progress.

May I post you the next assignment directly?
</Identity>

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrites:

>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>> ma**********@pobox.com said:
On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:
how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

Step 1. Sort the columns of each row into ascending order.
Step 2. Sort the rows into ascending order using the last column as
the key.
Step 3. Pick the last column of the last row.

I'm sure we can do better than O(c log c + r log r). Perhaps we
should specify a particular sort. That can get us right up to O(c^2
+ r^2) without any major effort. But can anyone find an
exponential-time algorithm?

Google "permutation sort".

Sorry, permutation sort isn't exponential-time. (It's worse.)

Worse is okay too.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>Tor Rustad said:

>>Richard Heathfield wrote:
ma**********@pobox.com said:
On 6 Jun, 10:50, [e-mail] wrote:
>how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

I'm sure we can do better than O(c log c + r log r). Perhaps we
should specify a particular sort. That can get us right up to O(c^2
+ r^2) without any major effort. But can anyone find an
exponential-time algorithm?

Arrgh.. exponential-time??! The worst sorting algorithms I know, are
O(N^2). :-/

I can't remember Knuth or Sedgewick, discussing anything worse than
that.

Give a hint please..

Well, let's see now...

while not sorted
exchange two elements at random
endwhile

That would do it, I think.

If the exchanges are truly random, that's not guaranteed to terminate,
so it doesn't qualify as an algorithm.

while not sorted
pick two elements at random
if they are disordered
exchange them
otherwise
find the first two elements that are disordered, and exchange them
end if
endwhile

Not quite as satisfying, but at least it will terminate at some point.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Chris Dollin]

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag

>You apparantly totally missed the humor involved in RH's post.

Me too I must admit. Isn't that what smileys have been invented for?

Smileys are a (n ubsubtle) replacement for tone-of-voice and so
should be omitted when wouldn't use the tone-of-voice signal,
such as in written text.

--
"Our future looks secure, but it's all out of our hands." /Man and Machine/
- Magenta

Hewlett-Packard Limited Cain Road, Bracknell, registered no:
registered office: Berks RG12 1HN 690597 England

[Tak-Shing Chan]

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Chris Dollin wrote:

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag

>>You apparantly totally missed the humor involved in RH's post.

Me too I must admit. Isn't that what smileys have been invented for?

Smileys are a (n ubsubtle) replacement for tone-of-voice and so
should be omitted when wouldn't use the tone-of-voice signal,
such as in written text.

Subtle humours are linguistic puzzles in disguise and so
should be omitted when these off-topic elements are lowering the
signal-to-noise for the newsgroup, such as comp.lang.c.

Tak-Shing

[Chris Dollin]

Tak-Shing Chan wrote:

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Chris Dollin wrote:

>Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>>"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag

>>>You apparantly totally missed the humor involved in RH's post.
Me too I must admit. Isn't that what smileys have been invented for?

Smileys are a (n ubsubtle) replacement for tone-of-voice and so
should be omitted when wouldn't use the tone-of-voice signal,
such as in written text.

Subtle humours are linguistic puzzles in disguise

So is text.

and so
should be omitted when these off-topic elements are lowering the
signal-to-noise for the newsgroup, such as comp.lang.c.

Wouldn't leave much.

Use all the smileys you like -- take my spare ones if you will.

--
"No-one here is exactly what he appears." G'kar, /Babylon 5/

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered no:
registered office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN 690597 England

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Dollin said:

<snip>

Use all the smileys you like -- take my spare ones if you will.

He's already pinched all mine. I think he's going for a global monopoly.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[mark_bluemel]

On 7 Jun, 11:57, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

Chris Dollin said:

<snip>

Use all the smileys you like -- take my spare ones if you will.

He's already pinched all mine. I think he's going for a global monopoly.

Do you recommending declaring those in header files?

[Chris Dollin]

ma**********@pobox.com wrote:

On 7 Jun, 11:57, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

>Chris Dollin said:

<snip>

Use all the smileys you like -- take my spare ones if you will.

He's already pinched all mine. I think he's going for a global monopoly.

Do you recommending declaring those in header files?

I haven't a clue about whether that's too risky. You might have to
scrabble around -- the history of the world makes it likely -- to
acquire the right careers. Once in a blue moon, some campaign
against smileys might succeed ...

--
"We did not have time to find out everything /A Clash of Cymbals/
we wanted to know." - James Blish

Hewlett-Packard Limited Cain Road, Bracknell, registered no:
registered office: Berks RG12 1HN 690597 England

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Dollin said:

ma**********@pobox.com wrote:

>On 7 Jun, 11:57, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

>>Chris Dollin said:

<snip>

Use all the smileys you like -- take my spare ones if you will.

He's already pinched all mine. I think he's going for a global
monopoly.

Do you recommending declaring those in header files?

I haven't a clue about whether that's too risky. You might have to
scrabble around -- the history of the world makes it likely -- to
acquire the right careers. Once in a blue moon, some campaign
against smileys might succeed ...

And that will be the end of civilization as we know it, or something
equally trivial.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[mark_bluemel]

On 7 Jun, 12:49, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

Chris Dollin said:

[e-mail] wrote:

On 7 Jun, 11:57, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:
Chris Dollin said:

><snip>

Use all the smileys you like -- take my spare ones if you will.

>He's already pinched all mine. I think he's going for a global
monopoly.

Do you recommending declaring those in header files?

I haven't a clue about whether that's too risky. You might have to
scrabble around -- the history of the world makes it likely -- to
acquire the right careers. Once in a blue moon, some campaign
against smileys might succeed ...

And that will be the end of civilization as we know it, or something
equally trivial.

Mornington Crescent!

[CBFalconer]

Tak-Shing Chan wrote:

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Chris Dollin wrote:

>Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>>"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag

>>>You apparantly totally missed the humor involved in RH's post.

Me too I must admit. Isn't that what smileys have been invented
for?

Smileys are a (n ubsubtle) replacement for tone-of-voice and so
should be omitted when wouldn't use the tone-of-voice signal,
such as in written text.

Subtle humours are linguistic puzzles in disguise and so
should be omitted when these off-topic elements are lowering the
signal-to-noise for the newsgroup, such as comp.lang.c.

Oh come on. Then everyone would go away, and the news-group would
be totally barren, except for those complaining about something or
other.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
<http://kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Kevin Handy]

be**************@yahoo.co.in wrote:

how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

Depends on how you measure your 'no's.

If it is by font size, then you will have to
rely on your OS/GUI to determine their sizes,
which is off-topic for this group.

If it is by number of characters, then it
should always be 2. If you allow usage
of foreign versions of 'no', then you will
need to use strlen(), and a dictionary lookup
to select just those words defined to be
'no'.

If you are using some other form of
measurement, please give us a better set of
specifications.

Since this sounds like a homework assignment,
please give us your teachers address to send
the responses to.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Tor Rustad]

Keith Thompson wrote:

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:

>Keith Thompson wrote:

>>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
Tor Rustad said:

... snip ...

>>>>Arrgh.. exponential-time??! The worst sorting algorithms I know,
are O(N^2). :-/
>
I can't remember Knuth or Sedgewick, discussing anything worse
than that.
>
Give a hint please..
Well, let's see now...

while not sorted
exchange two elements at random
endwhile

That would do it, I think.
If the exchanges are truly random, that's not guaranteed to
terminate, so it doesn't qualify as an algorithm.

Yes it is, given sufficient time and a really random generator :-)

No, it's not. A truly random generator can generate any possible
sequence, including a sequence that causes the code to repeatedly swap
the first two elements forever. The worst-case behavior is that it
never terminates.

Correct.

It isn't certain to terminate, but it terminates in some finite time
with probability 1.

That is a really deep one, but I also beleave it's correct, typically a
topic my brother try to explain when we both are drunk. I never get it.

In any case, this stopped being about C some time ago.

Sure, but if the student (OP) follow this far, he would learn something!

--
Tor <torust [at] online [dot] no>

[Richard Bos]

Tor Rustad <to********@hotmail.comwrote:

Keith Thompson wrote:

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:

Keith Thompson wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
while not sorted
exchange two elements at random
endwhile

That would do it, I think.
If the exchanges are truly random, that's not guaranteed to
terminate, so it doesn't qualify as an algorithm.
Yes it is, given sufficient time and a really random generator :-)

No, it's not. A truly random generator can generate any possible
sequence, including a sequence that causes the code to repeatedly swap
the first two elements forever. The worst-case behavior is that it
never terminates.

Correct.

It isn't certain to terminate, but it terminates in some finite time
with probability 1.

That is a really deep one, but I also beleave it's correct, typically a
topic my brother try to explain when we both are drunk. I never get it.

It is guaranteed to terminate in _some_ finite time, but whatever finite
time you choose to wait for it to terminate in, there is a non-zero
possibility that it may terminate in longer than that. Very sloppily
put, it will eventually terminate, but that termination point may be at
T+1, for _all_ finite T. (Even more sloppily put, it must terminate, but
it may do so at T=infinity. Which, in mathematics, is not the same thing
as not terminating at all, at any time.)

Richard

[Army1987]

<be**************@yahoo.co.inha scritto nel messaggio
news:11**********************@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...

how can i pick up largest no from 5 rows by 5 column matrix????

Use a variable (which I'll call max) to hold the element in the top
left corner, then loop through rows and columns, and, wherever you
find a number greater than max, assign it to max.