Talk:Self-balancing binary search tree

WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Computer science (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

tree

Is a B-Tree a binary tree? Doesn't a binary tree only allow two connections from it, while a B-Tree can have a lot more.

A B-tree is certainly not a binary tree. I have no idea when that link snuck in. Away with it! Deco 02:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

overview

The overview states that

(log-base2(n+1) - 1) >= log-base2(n)

How can this be? Am I missing something? Seems to me it should be less than or equal, not greater than or equal. E.g., if n=1 (no children), then log-base2(1 + 1) - 1 = 0 = log-base2(1) ... so in that case they are equal. But in any other case, the left hand side is smaller. E.g., let's say n=7:

log-base2(7+1) - 1 = 2 < log-base2(7)

Right?? Mike Williamson 2013/6/3 —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

the formula is wrong

${\displaystyle \lceil \log _{2}(n+1)-1\rceil \geq \lfloor \log _{2}n\rfloor }$

for example, n:=8, the left is 2, the right is 3. --User:Newmangling 2013/11/22 comment added 04:37,(UTC)

Ordered lists

The link to ordered lists goes to a page about HTML markup!

Presumably there's a better destination for it... does anyone know of one? 84.9.75.24 (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Implementations

That section should mention the differences between the various algorithms, which ones are good, which ones aren't, and which perform better in certain situations. Shinobu (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, this is an appropriate article for comparison. Dcoetzee 03:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

2-3 Tree is of course Self-balancing search tree but it is not "binary". Aleksey Midenkov (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Proof of min size

I appreciate the work that went into typing the proof of the minimum tree height. That proof would be fine in a textbook, but unfortunately Wikpedia is not a textbook; its articles are not supposed to include proofs, over-justify statements, or over-explain examples. Sorry, and all the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of proofs on Wikipedia. Are they really not allowed? What about if the proof only showed if you clicked a link saying 'show proof' or something? Strict rule-following should be weighed carefully against usefulness.Blackspotw (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I think proofs are fine. They are certainly encyclopedic if they come from a reliable source. There's nothing in WP:NOT that would suggest otherwise as far as I can tell. -- intgr [talk] 18:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
See Category:Articles containing proofs (there are 379 of them). There is the question of how useful this proof is here - is it too verbose? Depends on the reader. Dcoetzee 18:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is a splay height balanced?

In the first part of this article it reads: "a self-balancing (or height-balanced) binary search tree is any binary search tree data structure that automatically keeps its height" a splay tree is listed in this article as a tree that fits this description. however I do not believe that a splay tree is height balanced. I'm new to this so maybe someone whos better ith this topic could fix the article if it is incorrect, I'm just studying for a test, so I am not certain enough to edit this. DriverChief (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

hash table are not in O(1)

This article includes the often repeated but wrong statement that search in hashtables perform in O(1) and binary trees in O(log(n)). This error is due to two possible confusions:

• a misuse of the O() notation, when one assumes implicitly than n is smaller than some large but finite number, while O() does not have such restriction.
• the assumption that the cost of calculating a hash and performing a comparison is comparable asymptotically, which is not the case when n goes to infinity.

Indeed, if you have a set of n elements, you need at least log(n) bits to represent them, thus a hash function will take at least log(n) bit operations to read the input and produces a hash value. On the other hand, comparison can be performed in O(1) in average, because you only need to compare the first few bits until a mismatch occurs and not all the bits.

Thus, search is O(log(n)) in both case. 2A01:E35:2F45:9A0:BA76:3FFF:FEF7:E4D5 (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Er, what?
> the assumption that the cost of calculating a hash and performing a comparison is comparable asymptotically, which is not the case when n goes to infinity
The complexity of calculating the hash and comparing values is assumed to be constant, just like greater/less comparisons in a tree lookup aren't factored into the O() complexity. That's a fair assumption given constant-length keys.
> Indeed, if you have a set of n elements, you need at least log(n) bits to represent them
This applies just as well to a binary tree structure that needs to store left/right pointers, pointer size needs to be at least log(n). So by your argument its complexity should be O(log(log n))?
-- intgr [talk] 23:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)