4 ms·

This is boring. I'm sorry you're unable to read my first comment, and keep requesting reference you've already recieved. Notably, you're even providing scans

This is boring. I'm sorry you're unable to read my first comment, and keep requesting reference you've already recieved. Notably, you're even providing scans from the TAoCP page I gave you, which have the relevant text carefully trimmed away, and are showing individual paragraphs whose text does not attempt to give a definition, despite that a definition is present on those pages Who are you trying to convince, Frank? Nobody's reading this thread this late. Did you think I just didn't know what else was on the pages I gave you? When an anti-vaxxer wants to make a point, they have to turn to hilariously inappropriate sources to pretend they're defended. Techopedia, tutorials point, BBC news, a 2008 tutorial written by a student, and a random set of tutorials on a page full of broken links and misspellings. And very, very carefully edited Knuth. Amusingly, one of them even explicitly spells out the same thing I did. I see you're turning to the best in the business. And ignoring the coiner, again. Good luck to you.

ColinWright 5y ago
I read your comment ... you are calling me a liar, and I don't appreciate that. I'm providing scans of exactly the part where Knuth says the Bubble Sort only compares adjacent locations, just as I said. You said: > Bubble sort is the comparison of every pair. This is contradicted by the scans of TAoCP that I've provided. You said: > If you compare only adjacent pairs, you eliminate an enormous number of redundant comparisons. That's true, but you are eliminating redundant comparisons from something that is not a Bubble Sort. > This is bubble sort without the redundancy elimination. This is contradicted by the scanned excerpts from TAoCP. > It's just that the elimination is so common that many people don't know about it anymore, and think it's a defining part of the algorithm. The comparisons between locations that are not adjacent was never part of the Bubble Sort. You continue to claim otherwise, I have checked your references, as far as I can see they don't support your assertion. Please provide scans to support your claim. Otherwise I bid you good day, and good health.

ColinWright 5y ago

I read your comment ... you are calling me a liar, and I don't appreciate that. I'm providing scans of exactly the part where Knuth says the Bubble Sort only compares adjacent locations, just as I said. You said: > Bubble sort is the comparison of every pair. This is contradicted by the scans of TAoCP that I've provided. You said: > If you compare only adjacent pairs, you eliminate an enormous number of redundant comparisons. That's true, but you are eliminating redundant comparisons from something that is not a Bubble Sort. > This is bubble sort without the redundancy elimination. This is contradicted by the scanned excerpts from TAoCP. > It's just that the elimination is so common that many people don't know about it anymore, and think it's a defining part of the algorithm. The comparisons between locations that are not adjacent was never part of the Bubble Sort. You continue to claim otherwise, I have checked your references, as far as I can see they don't support your assertion. Please provide scans to support your claim. Otherwise I bid you good day, and good health.