01-03-2006, 05:30 PM
whyBish,Jan 3 2006, 11:00 AM Wrote:If you keep them in a sorted list based on fitness (assuming that fitness is a calculation internal to an organism, (i.e. doesn't change when your list changes)) then it wouldn't be O(n^2)...you could also maintain the cumulative fitness of the population. It does however mean that you take a hit on insertion (& deletion) so the overall runtime may end up back looking like O(nlogn)?
[right][snapback]98565[/snapback][/right]
Reworking it in my head, O(nlogn) is right. On very large sets, it would matter, but the overhead of the modivied trunc would probably be like half of log n on average anyway.
Still, I'm somewhat enamored with my modified truncation idea. I think I may try it out anyway.
Great truths are worth repeating:
"It is better to live in the corner of a roof
Than in a house shared with a contentious woman." -Proverbs 21:9
"It is better to live in the corner of a roof
Than in a house shared with a contentious woman." -Proverbs 25:24
"It is better to live in the corner of a roof
Than in a house shared with a contentious woman." -Proverbs 21:9
"It is better to live in the corner of a roof
Than in a house shared with a contentious woman." -Proverbs 25:24