12 Feb
2009
12 Feb
'09
6:45 p.m.
Hrmm, I suppose you're right. I was thinking that we could magically write
permute so that it wound up with n! thunks in an array, and then grab the
nth element in constant time. I guess that's not very correct. And by "not
very" I mean "not even close to".
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Brent Yorgey
Well, it sounds nice, but it's pretty inefficient. And by "pretty inefficient" I mean "horrendously, terribly inefficient" -- there are n! permutations of a list of length n, so this would take time O(n!) as opposed to O(n); O(n!) is even worse than O(2^n).
-Brent _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners