Path: news.mathworks.com!not-for-mail
From: "Bruno Luong" <b.luong@fogale.findmycountry>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: Re: finding minimum distance in a set of points
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:02:04 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: FOGALE nanotech
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <g72avc$378$1@fred.mathworks.com>
References: <g6v8fd$ntc$1@fred.mathworks.com> <bc2dfbf2-bf15-49ed-aac3-dab1d24e6c3b@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>  <e6b3bb92-4a70-4e6c-87b5-80c32a2068a7@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: "Bruno Luong" <b.luong@fogale.findmycountry>
NNTP-Posting-Host: webapp-02-blr.mathworks.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: fred.mathworks.com 1217703724 3304 172.30.248.37 (2 Aug 2008 19:02:04 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@mathworks.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:02:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: MATLAB Central Newsreader 390839
Xref: news.mathworks.com comp.soft-sys.matlab:483300



Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message
<e6b3bb92-4a70-4e6c-87b5-80c32a2068a7@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
> On 2 Aug, 18:21, "Bruno Luong"
<b.lu...@fogale.findmycountry> wrote:
> > Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message
> >
> > <8b35bb69-3422-4ee2-9ded-
> >
> >
> >
> > > So you don't know the *subject* but you know *people* who
> > > know the subject?
> >
> > "knowing" is a not black and white thing IMHO, but yes
> > geometry computation is not my major expertise and I don't
> > deal with it daily - if that information is an important
> > criteria for you Rune in the discussion.
> 
> It's not important to me in any other way than that it
> explains why you come up with positively wrong information.
> Knowing what you don't know is at least as important as
> knowing what you do know. (Yes. That actually makes sense.)
>

I see it's important for you despite you make the claim of
the contrary. May be I'm wrong about O(N), at least I show a
scientific paper with a results using may be a non valid
assumption that escapes me. Fine.

However what I expect from someone who really knows the
topic is pointing to me what is the assumption used by the
paper that is not true, thus why the claimed complexity is
not right. I have not read any of this in your post. You
were merely giving examples two or three algorithms that do
not have complexities go under O(N)log(N). This - of course
you must be aware - does not disprove the claim of the paper.

You wanted to prove you are the one who are working on the
topic and I'm not, so my claim is false is your is right.
You have not showed us why my claim is wrong beside telling
it. That's what you were doing, and to be honest with you, I
do not like this attitude at all.

Bruno

PS: And yes I have programmed myself the Voronoi/Delaunay
stuff at O(N)*log(N). I was involved in one of the proof of
one the the theorem in the PhD thesis of my friend. Just to
tell you so that you also know what I know.