A wild wild west Dutch bulletproof hoster (
AS202425 based in
Seychelles, virtually impenetrable) - wildly known for hosting child abuse material on the open web (cybercrime, etc.), and refusing to remove those.
This should be probably moved to AVL tree
Height of the binary search tree is defined as the maximum of the heights of left subtree and right subtree incremented by a factor of 1. Following is a recursive procedure for calculating the height of the BST given a root :[1]: 303-304
Tree-Height(x)
if x = NIL thenreturn -1
end if
left_height := Tree-Height(x.left)
right_height := Tree-Height(x.right)
if left_height > right_height thenreturn left_height + 1
elsereturn right_height + 1
end if
Hash tables
Remarks from David Eppstein:
A few points:
Space-time tradeoff paragraph of lead: makes no sense to me and not summarizing anything later.
History really deserves more than a three-line summary.
"Ershov had the same idea": Who? When? How was it disseminated?
"finite entries in the hash table": what would an entry that is not finite look like?
There is no overview section saying what a hash table is; the only material about that is in the lead.
Hash function section starts getting into details about desiderata and methods without ever saying clearly what it is: a function, often incorporating a small random seed, for mapping keys to table addresses.
"Uniformity is sometimes difficult to ensure by design, but may be evaluated empirically using statistical tests,": this feels like really out-of-date advice when we now have theoretical methods for guaranteeing correct behavior of hash functions (k-independence). K-independence and universal are written about in two separate paragraphs as if they are two separate things (they are not).
Somewhere around here is the point, about 1/3 of the way of the article, where in a real review I would have given up and quick-failed it because there are just too many points where it is too far from having the appropriate coverage. The next section, on collision resolution methods, for instance, is probably too detailed on some methods and again really misses the big picture, failing both
WP:GACR 3a and 3b.
A wild wild west Dutch bulletproof hoster (
AS202425 based in
Seychelles, virtually impenetrable) - wildly known for hosting child abuse material on the open web (cybercrime, etc.), and refusing to remove those.
This should be probably moved to AVL tree
Height of the binary search tree is defined as the maximum of the heights of left subtree and right subtree incremented by a factor of 1. Following is a recursive procedure for calculating the height of the BST given a root :[1]: 303-304
Tree-Height(x)
if x = NIL thenreturn -1
end if
left_height := Tree-Height(x.left)
right_height := Tree-Height(x.right)
if left_height > right_height thenreturn left_height + 1
elsereturn right_height + 1
end if
Hash tables
Remarks from David Eppstein:
A few points:
Space-time tradeoff paragraph of lead: makes no sense to me and not summarizing anything later.
History really deserves more than a three-line summary.
"Ershov had the same idea": Who? When? How was it disseminated?
"finite entries in the hash table": what would an entry that is not finite look like?
There is no overview section saying what a hash table is; the only material about that is in the lead.
Hash function section starts getting into details about desiderata and methods without ever saying clearly what it is: a function, often incorporating a small random seed, for mapping keys to table addresses.
"Uniformity is sometimes difficult to ensure by design, but may be evaluated empirically using statistical tests,": this feels like really out-of-date advice when we now have theoretical methods for guaranteeing correct behavior of hash functions (k-independence). K-independence and universal are written about in two separate paragraphs as if they are two separate things (they are not).
Somewhere around here is the point, about 1/3 of the way of the article, where in a real review I would have given up and quick-failed it because there are just too many points where it is too far from having the appropriate coverage. The next section, on collision resolution methods, for instance, is probably too detailed on some methods and again really misses the big picture, failing both
WP:GACR 3a and 3b.