1. TrutherD1 Said,

   Research “chemtrails” here on YouTube. Check my vids I film it all the time. Wake up and wake others!

2. stpinc2 Said,

   Why are you even arguing? It was supposed to be a funny video. You guys are ruining it

3. Rowdyiscool Said,

   @mruvia Not necessarily, 100 is the same as 0100 so any integer can be compared.

4. Rowdyiscool Said,

   you would have been wrong as well

5. greenland0 Said,

   @sashetoa Programming in Python 3 by Mark Summerfield

6. Wilone328 Said,

   America’s opinions need to be shared!! Do you believe in 0bama’s new health care policy?? Stop by my utube profile to discover just why your points of view means something !!

7. oposum2310 Said,

   The funny thing is, he knows a possible answer but like all politicians he don’t know the right one.

8. MsWestlife Said,

   LOL he can’t answer it how terrible!

9. sashetoa Said,

   please someone recommend me a base book about computer science.

10. mruvia Said,

    @irockyou1337 No it would be O(K*N) where k is the length of the key and N is number of elements you have. Furthermore this sort works only on items with same key length.

11. mruvia Said,

    @forexnoob yea defenitely quick sort is way better then Bubble sort.

12. Matthewisinthewoods Said,

    @ChristopherDone obviously not hes the fucking president and hes black maybe he did know….

13. forexnoob Said,

    I would have answered: quicksort

14. irockyou1337 Said,

    @kormoc Nevermind, that would be O(n). Derp.

15. irockyou1337 Said,

    @kormoc How about radix sort? That would be O(1)

16. torgausen Said,

    You must look at all the numbers, but I guess it could be done with a special xmm instruction that sorts its 32bit ints in a single clock cycle (hence O(1)) if the chip producers would consider it worthwile.

17. kormoc Said,

    Your calculations for big O cost is incorrect for sorting 3 items in O(1). Please write a generic algorithm that will take any three numbers and sort them correctly in one operation without scanning all three of them.

18. torgausen Said,

    Have another look at the problem. Obama is asked to sort a constant number of items (1,000,000). So if you want to call this constant “n”, then “n” is in this case 1,000,000. Hence bubblesort will run in O(1,000,000^2 / 2) which is in O(1), if you interpret the math correctly. Or look at it this way: can you not sort 3 items in O(1)? Why not 5 items then? What is the biggest constant number of items you can sort in O(1)?

19. Watchdawg Said,

    @ChristopherDone Exactly.

20. ChristopherDone Said,

    They obviously set him up with it before hand.

21. clamberson Said,

    You don’t understand Big-O notation, do you? No biggie, but you should read up on it

    Bubble sort is still most definitely O(n^2)

22. amara01addis Said,

    What. The. Fuck?

    n….is a constant?!

23. torgausen Said,

    To be extremely pedantic, any sorting algorithm for this problem would run in O(1), since n is a constant (1,000,000). And I love to pedantic ^ ^

24. reinux Said,

    depends on whether or not the data can be assumed to be mostly sorted, and whether or not the data is IO bound.

    “bubblesort is the wrong way to go” is a more correct answer than “quicksort”

25. andrefaramir Said,

    wow, pergunta pro lula agora HUASHUADHUASD

Add A Comment