A new definition of a common, well-understood, term, which is contrary to the older definition, is simply an abomination. Words have to have meanings that are consistent, and well understood.
So, yes. You don't know the quality of Noson's definition. It's wrong, and it stinks. Algorithms are ALREADY perfectly defined, without this mis-definition. Check any dictionary or glossary of terms in a CS beginning course book. By simply re-defining some of his terms, he would be using the word in it's correct definition. I don't think that's asking too much, do you? Adak --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Algorithm Geeks" group. To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
