1994-06-17 - Re: Prime magnitude and keys…a ?

Header Data

From: SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>
To: ravage@bga.com (Jim choate)
Message Hash: d5bafdcf50a91b6f6cb4f6b282f7924e47dd79f43c9604ae73b1a62dc17e0fe4
Message ID: <94Jun17.165505edt.11416@cannon.ecf.toronto.edu>
Reply To: <199406171830.NAA09354@zoom.bga.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-06-17 21:05:43 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 17 Jun 94 14:05:43 PDT

Raw message

From: SINCLAIR  DOUGLAS N <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 94 14:05:43 PDT
To: ravage@bga.com (Jim choate)
Subject: Re: Prime magnitude and keys...a ?
In-Reply-To: <199406171830.NAA09354@zoom.bga.com>
Message-ID: <94Jun17.165505edt.11416@cannon.ecf.toronto.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> > I can pretty much hint to you that such a thing can't really be done
> > in log base 2 of n time in the sense that I believe I can prove that
> >
> This is a joke right? Why in the world should the base have a damn thing
> to do with the algorithm? A number is a number last time I checked.

I think you misunderstand.  Perry and I are talking about the
algormithm (If it exists) being O(log_2(n)).  That is, "log base 2 of n".
This means that the time taken is proportional to the log to the base
two of the number of keys.

Fascinating as this speculation is, I see no way to craft such
an algorithm.  The nature of the modular space makes "larger"
and "smaller" difficult to distinguish.