Talk:Amortized analysis

message: This page looks very much like the textbook sited below. So much indeed that it looks like copyright infringement. Perhaps that someone with knowledge about this subject could rewrite this page. Sadly I'm just learning about it so I don't have enough knowledge to say something about it. --Soyweiser 10:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Soyweiser is correct, there was/is copyright violation on this page. When whole ideas are taken from a published work, or very substantial text, slight reordering or adding other sources does not remove the copyright burden.
Example section was almost cut-and-pasted from Design and analysis of algorithms by V.V. Muniswamy. That's copyright infringement, so deleted. http://books.google.com/books?id=6eIPgTo8AaIC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=%22In+average-case+analysis,+we+are+averaging+over+all+possible+inputs%22&source=bl&ots=shGN9VhF-X&sig=6voFhtpL8A8kzYV-GewTOZKRFVk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-1YMULOyDeme2AW_2uHyDw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22In%20average-case%20analysis%2C%20we%20are%20averaging%20over%20all%20possible%20inputs%22&f=false 76.102.1.193 (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. I note in the reviews for that book ... "V V Muniwamy is very good copy Master. He will just copy form differnet books and inform that he write the book. He is number one useless person. He cheated number of students in S V University, TPT". Whereever it ultimately came from, it's copyright violation. 76.102.1.193 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you were able to reproduce the entire work from Google Books: Fair use or copyright violation?--2001:18E8:3:104E:197F:49DD:AB15:A7EE (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: what is ment with probabilistic methods? i thought it's used to show existance, not runtime bounds? --141.53.220.223 (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Amortized cost is performed in 3 ways. aggregate analysis, counting analysis and potential method.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.105.84 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: The paragraph states :
:In general if we consider an arbitrary number of pushes n + 1 to an array of size n, we notice that push operations take constant time except for the last one which takes O(n) time to perform the size doubling operation. Since there were n + 1 operations total we can take the average of this and find that pushing elements onto the dynamic array takes: O(n)/n+1=O(1), constant time
That explanation sounds wrong. For n operations, the doubling operations does not occur once, but lg(n) times, and each time cost lg(n) ops to do. 
Then, amortized, it will be lg(n)²/n, which boils down to O(1).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.114.201.77 (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynamic array example sounds wrong 

message: Perhaps this isn't a requirement, but the graph appears to be showing the cost of a dynamic array of initial length 0, rather than 4.
MoeDrippins (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynamic Array Picture doesn't match the text 

message: Can someone rewrite the Ruby example in Python instead? Ruby is not popular and hard to understand. Python is much more popular and easier to understand and more familiar to readers. Frap (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruby to Python