Mixing
Why is the sequence “3,3,4,5,2†considered a bitonic sequence?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Why do we consider the sequence "3,3,4,5,2" a bitonic sequence?
In the sequence, "3,3,4,5,2", the sequence is
- constant for "3,3",
- increasing for "4,5", and
- decreasing for "5,2".
algorithms parallel-computing
edited Aug 21 at 19:59
PÃ¥l GD
5,7621838
asked Aug 21 at 13:00
user40628
355
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Why do we consider the sequence "3,3,4,5,2" a bitonic sequence?
In the sequence, "3,3,4,5,2", the sequence is
- constant for "3,3",
- increasing for "4,5", and
- decreasing for "5,2".
algorithms parallel-computing
edited Aug 21 at 19:59
PÃ¥l GD
5,7621838
asked Aug 21 at 13:00
user40628
355
According to this site: A Bitonic Sequence is a sequence of numbers which is first strictly increasing then after a point strictly decreasing. , your example might be incorrect because "3,3" is not strictly increasing. I am not an expert. Waiting for experts to explain.
– scaaahu
Aug 21 at 13:18
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Why do we consider the sequence "3,3,4,5,2" a bitonic sequence?
In the sequence, "3,3,4,5,2", the sequence is
- constant for "3,3",
- increasing for "4,5", and
- decreasing for "5,2".
algorithms parallel-computing
edited Aug 21 at 19:59
PÃ¥l GD
5,7621838
asked Aug 21 at 13:00
user40628
355
Why do we consider the sequence "3,3,4,5,2" a bitonic sequence?
In the sequence, "3,3,4,5,2", the sequence is
- constant for "3,3",
- increasing for "4,5", and
- decreasing for "5,2".
algorithms parallel-computing
edited Aug 21 at 19:59
PÃ¥l GD
5,7621838
asked Aug 21 at 13:00
user40628
355
edited Aug 21 at 19:59
PÃ¥l GD
5,7621838
edited Aug 21 at 19:59
PÃ¥l GD
5,7621838
edited Aug 21 at 19:59
PÃ¥l GD
5,7621838
5,7621838
asked Aug 21 at 13:00
user40628
355
asked Aug 21 at 13:00
user40628
355
asked Aug 21 at 13:00
user40628
355
355
According to this site: A Bitonic Sequence is a sequence of numbers which is first strictly increasing then after a point strictly decreasing. , your example might be incorrect because "3,3" is not strictly increasing. I am not an expert. Waiting for experts to explain.
– scaaahu
Aug 21 at 13:18
add a comment |Â
According to this site: A Bitonic Sequence is a sequence of numbers which is first strictly increasing then after a point strictly decreasing. , your example might be incorrect because "3,3" is not strictly increasing. I am not an expert. Waiting for experts to explain.
– scaaahu
Aug 21 at 13:18
According to this site: A Bitonic Sequence is a sequence of numbers which is first strictly increasing then after a point strictly decreasing. , your example might be incorrect because "3,3" is not strictly increasing. I am not an expert. Waiting for experts to explain.
– scaaahu
Aug 21 at 13:18
According to this site: A Bitonic Sequence is a sequence of numbers which is first strictly increasing then after a point strictly decreasing. , your example might be incorrect because "3,3" is not strictly increasing. I am not an expert. Waiting for experts to explain.
– scaaahu
Aug 21 at 13:18
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
Bitonic sequence is defined for example for parallel sort, as non-decreasing and then non-increasing sequence, to allow duplicates.
See here: Bitonic sequence. Also Wikipedia article about Bitonic sorter shows the same definition which is, afaik, the common one.
answered Aug 21 at 13:54
Evil
7,43842144
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
The words "increasing" and "decreasing" are used in inconsistent ways. Probably, you're assuming one definition while the author of the text that's confusing you is using the other. Say that the sequence $a_1, dots, a_n$ is
type A if $a_1leq a_2leq dotsleq a_n$;
type B if $a_1<a_2<dots<a_n$.
The problem is that
- some people refer to type A sequences as "nondecreasing" and type B sequences as "strictly increasing", which is unambiguous;
- some people call type A "nondecreasing" and type B "increasing";
- some people call type A "increasing" and type B "strictly increasing".
This means that the term "increasing" is ambiguous because some people use it for type A and some people use it for type B. (And ditto for variants of "decreasing".)
The same problem occurs, though to a much smaller extent; with the terms "nonnegative", "positive" and "strictly positive": the first definitely means $geq 0$, the last definitely means $>0$; the majority of people use "positive" to mean $>0$ but a few use it for $geq 0$. (And ditto for variants of "negative".)
answered Aug 21 at 14:59
David Richerby
61.3k1594179
2
Agreed (+1) up until the last paragraph. Does positive really ever mean anything other than "strictly positive"?
– wchargin
Aug 22 at 0:14
1
@wchargin codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1324/…
– user92772
Aug 22 at 0:22
@user202729 codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1324/… :-) (but thanks for the link)
– wchargin
Aug 22 at 8:11
2
I agree with @wchargin and I would like this site to not to bow to France's bad usage. I strongly advise against saying that the same problem occurs with the terms "positive" and "negative", especially when we are in a site whose name contains "computer science". At the very least, could you add a word or two to discourage the ambiguous usage of positive thats include 0 and the usage of negative thats include 0?
– Apass.Jack
Aug 22 at 8:23
@Apass.Jack I'm not bowing to anything; I'm noting usage.
– David Richerby
Aug 22 at 8:55
 |Â
show 4 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
Bitonic sequence is defined for example for parallel sort, as non-decreasing and then non-increasing sequence, to allow duplicates.
See here: Bitonic sequence. Also Wikipedia article about Bitonic sorter shows the same definition which is, afaik, the common one.
answered Aug 21 at 13:54
Evil
7,43842144
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
Bitonic sequence is defined for example for parallel sort, as non-decreasing and then non-increasing sequence, to allow duplicates.
See here: Bitonic sequence. Also Wikipedia article about Bitonic sorter shows the same definition which is, afaik, the common one.
answered Aug 21 at 13:54
Evil
7,43842144
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
Bitonic sequence is defined for example for parallel sort, as non-decreasing and then non-increasing sequence, to allow duplicates.
See here: Bitonic sequence. Also Wikipedia article about Bitonic sorter shows the same definition which is, afaik, the common one.
answered Aug 21 at 13:54
Evil
7,43842144
Bitonic sequence is defined for example for parallel sort, as non-decreasing and then non-increasing sequence, to allow duplicates.
See here: Bitonic sequence. Also Wikipedia article about Bitonic sorter shows the same definition which is, afaik, the common one.
answered Aug 21 at 13:54
Evil
7,43842144
answered Aug 21 at 13:54
Evil
7,43842144
answered Aug 21 at 13:54
Evil
7,43842144
answered Aug 21 at 13:54
Evil
7,43842144
7,43842144
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
The words "increasing" and "decreasing" are used in inconsistent ways. Probably, you're assuming one definition while the author of the text that's confusing you is using the other. Say that the sequence $a_1, dots, a_n$ is
type A if $a_1leq a_2leq dotsleq a_n$;
type B if $a_1<a_2<dots<a_n$.
The problem is that
- some people refer to type A sequences as "nondecreasing" and type B sequences as "strictly increasing", which is unambiguous;
- some people call type A "nondecreasing" and type B "increasing";
- some people call type A "increasing" and type B "strictly increasing".
This means that the term "increasing" is ambiguous because some people use it for type A and some people use it for type B. (And ditto for variants of "decreasing".)
The same problem occurs, though to a much smaller extent; with the terms "nonnegative", "positive" and "strictly positive": the first definitely means $geq 0$, the last definitely means $>0$; the majority of people use "positive" to mean $>0$ but a few use it for $geq 0$. (And ditto for variants of "negative".)
answered Aug 21 at 14:59
David Richerby
61.3k1594179
2
Agreed (+1) up until the last paragraph. Does positive really ever mean anything other than "strictly positive"?
– wchargin
Aug 22 at 0:14
1
@wchargin codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1324/…
– user92772
Aug 22 at 0:22
@user202729 codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1324/… :-) (but thanks for the link)
– wchargin
Aug 22 at 8:11
2
I agree with @wchargin and I would like this site to not to bow to France's bad usage. I strongly advise against saying that the same problem occurs with the terms "positive" and "negative", especially when we are in a site whose name contains "computer science". At the very least, could you add a word or two to discourage the ambiguous usage of positive thats include 0 and the usage of negative thats include 0?
– Apass.Jack
Aug 22 at 8:23
@Apass.Jack I'm not bowing to anything; I'm noting usage.
– David Richerby
Aug 22 at 8:55
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
11
down vote
The words "increasing" and "decreasing" are used in inconsistent ways. Probably, you're assuming one definition while the author of the text that's confusing you is using the other. Say that the sequence $a_1, dots, a_n$ is
type A if $a_1leq a_2leq dotsleq a_n$;
type B if $a_1<a_2<dots<a_n$.
The problem is that
- some people refer to type A sequences as "nondecreasing" and type B sequences as "strictly increasing", which is unambiguous;
- some people call type A "nondecreasing" and type B "increasing";
- some people call type A "increasing" and type B "strictly increasing".
This means that the term "increasing" is ambiguous because some people use it for type A and some people use it for type B. (And ditto for variants of "decreasing".)
The same problem occurs, though to a much smaller extent; with the terms "nonnegative", "positive" and "strictly positive": the first definitely means $geq 0$, the last definitely means $>0$; the majority of people use "positive" to mean $>0$ but a few use it for $geq 0$. (And ditto for variants of "negative".)
answered Aug 21 at 14:59
David Richerby
61.3k1594179
2
Agreed (+1) up until the last paragraph. Does positive really ever mean anything other than "strictly positive"?
– wchargin
Aug 22 at 0:14
1
@wchargin codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1324/…
– user92772
Aug 22 at 0:22
@user202729 codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1324/… :-) (but thanks for the link)
– wchargin
Aug 22 at 8:11
2
I agree with @wchargin and I would like this site to not to bow to France's bad usage. I strongly advise against saying that the same problem occurs with the terms "positive" and "negative", especially when we are in a site whose name contains "computer science". At the very least, could you add a word or two to discourage the ambiguous usage of positive thats include 0 and the usage of negative thats include 0?
– Apass.Jack
Aug 22 at 8:23
@Apass.Jack I'm not bowing to anything; I'm noting usage.
– David Richerby
Aug 22 at 8:55
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
down vote
The words "increasing" and "decreasing" are used in inconsistent ways. Probably, you're assuming one definition while the author of the text that's confusing you is using the other. Say that the sequence $a_1, dots, a_n$ is
type A if $a_1leq a_2leq dotsleq a_n$;
type B if $a_1<a_2<dots<a_n$.
The problem is that
- some people refer to type A sequences as "nondecreasing" and type B sequences as "strictly increasing", which is unambiguous;
- some people call type A "nondecreasing" and type B "increasing";
- some people call type A "increasing" and type B "strictly increasing".
This means that the term "increasing" is ambiguous because some people use it for type A and some people use it for type B. (And ditto for variants of "decreasing".)
The same problem occurs, though to a much smaller extent; with the terms "nonnegative", "positive" and "strictly positive": the first definitely means $geq 0$, the last definitely means $>0$; the majority of people use "positive" to mean $>0$ but a few use it for $geq 0$. (And ditto for variants of "negative".)
answered Aug 21 at 14:59
David Richerby
61.3k1594179
The words "increasing" and "decreasing" are used in inconsistent ways. Probably, you're assuming one definition while the author of the text that's confusing you is using the other. Say that the sequence $a_1, dots, a_n$ is
type A if $a_1leq a_2leq dotsleq a_n$;
type B if $a_1<a_2<dots<a_n$.
The problem is that
- some people refer to type A sequences as "nondecreasing" and type B sequences as "strictly increasing", which is unambiguous;
- some people call type A "nondecreasing" and type B "increasing";
- some people call type A "increasing" and type B "strictly increasing".
This means that the term "increasing" is ambiguous because some people use it for type A and some people use it for type B. (And ditto for variants of "decreasing".)
The same problem occurs, though to a much smaller extent; with the terms "nonnegative", "positive" and "strictly positive": the first definitely means $geq 0$, the last definitely means $>0$; the majority of people use "positive" to mean $>0$ but a few use it for $geq 0$. (And ditto for variants of "negative".)
answered Aug 21 at 14:59
David Richerby
61.3k1594179
edited Aug 22 at 9:25
answered Aug 21 at 14:59
David Richerby
61.3k1594179
answered Aug 21 at 14:59
David Richerby
61.3k1594179
answered Aug 21 at 14:59
David Richerby
61.3k1594179
61.3k1594179
2
Agreed (+1) up until the last paragraph. Does positive really ever mean anything other than "strictly positive"?
– wchargin
Aug 22 at 0:14
1
@wchargin codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1324/…
– user92772
Aug 22 at 0:22
@user202729 codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1324/… :-) (but thanks for the link)
– wchargin
Aug 22 at 8:11
2
I agree with @wchargin and I would like this site to not to bow to France's bad usage. I strongly advise against saying that the same problem occurs with the terms "positive" and "negative", especially when we are in a site whose name contains "computer science". At the very least, could you add a word or two to discourage the ambiguous usage of positive thats include 0 and the usage of negative thats include 0?
– Apass.Jack
Aug 22 at 8:23
@Apass.Jack I'm not bowing to anything; I'm noting usage.
– David Richerby
Aug 22 at 8:55
 |Â
show 4 more comments
2
Agreed (+1) up until the last paragraph. Does positive really ever mean anything other than "strictly positive"?
– wchargin
Aug 22 at 0:14
1
@wchargin codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1324/…
– user92772
Aug 22 at 0:22
@user202729 codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1324/… :-) (but thanks for the link)
– wchargin
Aug 22 at 8:11
2
I agree with @wchargin and I would like this site to not to bow to France's bad usage. I strongly advise against saying that the same problem occurs with the terms "positive" and "negative", especially when we are in a site whose name contains "computer science". At the very least, could you add a word or two to discourage the ambiguous usage of positive thats include 0 and the usage of negative thats include 0?
– Apass.Jack
Aug 22 at 8:23
@Apass.Jack I'm not bowing to anything; I'm noting usage.
– David Richerby
Aug 22 at 8:55
2
2
Agreed (+1) up until the last paragraph. Does positive really ever mean anything other than "strictly positive"?
– wchargin
Aug 22 at 0:14
Agreed (+1) up until the last paragraph. Does positive really ever mean anything other than "strictly positive"?
– wchargin
Aug 22 at 0:14
1
1
@wchargin codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1324/…
– user92772
Aug 22 at 0:22
@wchargin codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1324/…
– user92772
Aug 22 at 0:22
@user202729 codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1324/… :-) (but thanks for the link)
– wchargin
Aug 22 at 8:11
@user202729 codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1324/… :-) (but thanks for the link)
– wchargin
Aug 22 at 8:11
2
2
I agree with @wchargin and I would like this site to not to bow to France's bad usage. I strongly advise against saying that the same problem occurs with the terms "positive" and "negative", especially when we are in a site whose name contains "computer science". At the very least, could you add a word or two to discourage the ambiguous usage of positive thats include 0 and the usage of negative thats include 0?
– Apass.Jack
Aug 22 at 8:23
I agree with @wchargin and I would like this site to not to bow to France's bad usage. I strongly advise against saying that the same problem occurs with the terms "positive" and "negative", especially when we are in a site whose name contains "computer science". At the very least, could you add a word or two to discourage the ambiguous usage of positive thats include 0 and the usage of negative thats include 0?
– Apass.Jack
Aug 22 at 8:23
@Apass.Jack I'm not bowing to anything; I'm noting usage.
– David Richerby
Aug 22 at 8:55
@Apass.Jack I'm not bowing to anything; I'm noting usage.
– David Richerby
Aug 22 at 8:55
 |Â
show 4 more comments
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f96459%2fwhy-is-the-sequence-3-3-4-5-2-considered-a-bitonic-sequence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
According to this site: A Bitonic Sequence is a sequence of numbers which is first strictly increasing then after a point strictly decreasing. , your example might be incorrect because "3,3" is not strictly increasing. I am not an expert. Waiting for experts to explain.
– scaaahu
Aug 21 at 13:18