/prog/'s -6.00002 class - Sleepsort is O(1)

Hello my students, today we will talk about Sleepsort.

Consider N lolies!, each one of them holding a paper with a integer on it and all of them standing in a line.
They all look at the clock and at the second that is equal to the integer written on their paper they get into a queue.
When the process finishes you have a ordered, ascending queue of lolies! in O(1).

So that's all, come back to the next lesson.

>>4
These ``people'' seem to be forgetting that computer science isn't about computers. _{for more information please consult your SICP.}

>>15
Lambiam - JEW
Biggest shalom ever to Lambiam the obvious jewish plant!

>>41
Then why's it called computer science, dickwad?

>>42
READ SICP

>>43
The book that contains code to be interpreted on a computer?

>>44
What's stopping me from defining all those (((functions))) as mathematical objects and ``execute'' them on paper? Computers are merely a tool to achieve an end.

>>45
What's stopping you from checking 44-kun's dubs?

>>45
>on paper
>not in your head
lol u nigger

>>45
I know a composer who can't play a single instrument but can compose fairly well, since he knows all the rudiments of music theory and harmony.

Regardless, you're being trolled.

>>48
Computers transform inputs into useful outputs. This can be done on paper, since the format of the output doesn't matter as long as the operator can derive meaningful conclusions from these results.

On the other hand, music is fiercely dependent on the format of the ``outputs'', and there are many possible interpretations for it. Your analogy doesn't work here, though I get your point of computers being a very useful tool for computer science. Useful doesn't necessarily mean irreplaceable though.

IHBT

>>49
Actually, the point I was making, though I'll admit it wasn't made entirely well, was that music doesn't have to be output through an instrument. One can write music that is meant to be read and not played, just like you described with your programming on paper, so long as everything is input correctly. No computers and no instruments. Just pencil and paper, like it used to be done. I was actually agreeing with you. The main difference, as you said, is that there are many possible ways to interpret the input of music, whereas the computer dominates the interpretation of programming.

>>50
Programs can be interpreted as music.

>>51
Are you saying that programs can literally output music (such as Lilypad's notation language?) or that programs can be considered to be on the same level as music?

When are you lecturing the next class? I want to adjust my schedule so I don't miss it.