Talk:Red black trees

From Rosetta Code
Revision as of 05:05, 15 July 2022 by Petelomax (talk | contribs) (→‎Is this supposed to be a task?: and also link)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Petelomax in topic Is this supposed to be a task?

Each node has only 3 states instead of 4 states as with AVL Trees. This may have implications in biology. It would be interesting to know whether the search trees of the brain are 2 state, 3 state or 4 state, Red/Black or AVL. Two states may be more susceptible to representation in biology. As an aside, 4 state trees can be made into 3 state trees if each node has a separate isHeader boolean. Using the same stategy, Red/Black trees can be reduced to 2 state trees - which biology could easily handle. So I'm guessing that our brains have Red/Black trees in them. NNcNannara (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone on the internet, I forget who, says that red/black should be done from the top down rather than bottom up. The algorithms presented here are bottom-up. In fact, they are a port of Borland's C++ STL implementation. Note that they are not as simple as the AVL implementation in C#. RotateLeft and RotateRight have two parameters instead on one (as for AVL). NNcNannara (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this supposed to be a task?

(I thought we already had a red-black tree task, but I can't find it - I don't know if that's because of bit rot or because we never had one...)

If this is a [[Rosetta_Code:Add_a_Task|task], it should have a task description, at the very least. If this is meant to be part of some other task, it should link to that (if it still exists). --Rdm (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The red-black tree page is under Pattern_matching. --Thundergnat (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now also Red_black_tree_sort --Pete Lomax (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]