hi, i was wondering if anyone had any examples of a Binary Search Tree written in C++?
thanks a lot
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-27 9:05
void btree::search()
{
// Enter code here
}
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-27 9:08
oh come on.. i'm in the first semester of my career :P and this is the final project
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-27 9:09
ah nvm i think that string kinda helped heheheeeeeeeeeee..
i will look in google for another hour..
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-27 9:09
Try figuring it out yourself instead of relying on others. They call that "learning".
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-27 9:12
void btree::search(int i)
{
if (i == this->i)
return true;
if (i < this->i && this->left)
return this->left->bsearch(i);
if (i > this->i && this->right)
return this->right->bsearch(i);
return false;
}
>>5
im a very good self learner BUT:
1. i don't reeeeeeeeeally have time right now
2. i got tired of googling all day
3. i didn't lose anything by asking, did i?
NOW, go out and ask a girl out, you won't lose anything! :p
back to business
>>6
thanks, those are the things i need... small pointers to guide me to the right direction
You did lose something by asking. You failed to understand the problem, you failed to find a solution for the problem and you failed to implement and test the solution by yourself.
If you're going to have other people do things for you, you might as well drop out of school right now.
Asking out girls is not the same, because learning to interpret their behavior and becoming experienced in talking to girls actually requires you to ask them questions.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-27 9:30
def search_binary_tree(node, key):
if node is None:
return None # key not found
if key < node.key:
return search_binary_tree(node.left, key)
else if key > node.key:
return search_binary_tree(node.right, key)
else: # key is equal to node key
return node.value # found key
>>13
Nah, im actually one of the best in my career right now, but i hate programming :-/
And LOL nice response.... But if you analyze the concept of asking out a girl, you will find out that NAAAAAAAAHH im not gonna continue that hehe im not the kind of fight starter
nice..... i find genealogical trees as examples for binary search trees everywhere.. is there any difference between that and a normal, generic binary tree??
thanks everyone for their help, i think i'm heading in a better way right now
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-27 9:53
>>16
Nah, im actually one of the worst in my career right now, but i read SICP :-/
And LOL nice response.... But if you analyze the concept of asking out a Lisp Wizard, you will find out that NAAAAAAAAHH im not gonna continue that hehe im not the kind of fight starter
nice..... i find gynecological trees as examples for binary search trees everywhere.. is there any difference between that and a normal, geriatric binary tree??
eeeerrrrrrrr i repeat, i AM falling asleep LOL god... what am i thinking
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-27 10:13
Damn it, man - are you retarded?
Also, binary search trees are entirely the wrong data structure to store ancestral relationships.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-27 10:14
>>23
no, im not retarded... i just have NEVER programmed before, i barely know C++
"Also, binary search trees are entirely the wrong data structure to store ancestral relationships."
really? damn.. well, what do you recommend? linked lists? queues?
binary trees seemed just perfect to me :-/
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-27 10:33
>>24
Binary search trees are excellent when you have a list of items that you need to search quickly, but by design has several features that make it inappropriate for your application. Most importantly, each node only has two children and they are ordered such that the left_node < parent_node < right_node.
When designing your data structure, think about your constraints. Each node (person) has up to two known parents (unless you count adoptive parents, then maybe more), and may have zero or more children. Also, the structure may not strictly be a tree as incestuous relationships can occur that cross generational boundaries.
You should consider how your data will be used, as it will help determine how much redundant/pre-calculated/process data you wish to store to speed things up.
(Of course, you can use a binary search tree if you wanted to index a particular piece of information such as surname or date of death. But the information you want to store doesn't fit that data structure alone.)
>>25
lol wut ______child______
| |
_____mom_____ _____dad_____
| | | |
mom___ ___dad mom___ ___dad
| | | | | | | |
mom dad mom dad mom dad mom dad
How the fuck is this not a binary tree?
inb4 YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-27 11:06
>>27
______child______
| |
_____mom_____ _____dad_____
| | | |
mom___ ___dad mom___ ___dad___
| | | | | | | | |
mom dad mom dad mom dad mom dad mom
NOW WHAT
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-27 11:07
>>27
You fail it, HARD. Firstly, you obviously don't know the difference between a binary search tree (as was the subject of the OP's question) and a binary tree. And most importantly - your data structure is only suitable if each couple has only one child.
The time you wasted with your shitty ASCII art would have been better spent educating yourself on computer science fundamentals.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-27 11:07
>>27
mmm that's exactly what i was thinking of in the first place :/
>>29
Yeah, he asked for a binary search tree. But what does that mean in the context of a genealogy? Or a genealogical tree? How do you define a total order for the set of all ancestors of a given person?
It's a stupid question. A binary search tree isn't the right structure. A person's entire ancestry (omitting anomalies and complications as shown in >>33) can be represented as a single simple binary tree.
As for your comment about my tree only showing a single child - durr, your brother/uncle/second-cousin-once-removed didn't contribute to your genetic makeup - they're not in your ancestral tree.
If you'd like to criticize my confusion of an ancestral tree with a genealogical tree (if they're not the same thing), then feel free to do so. Otherwise, you're a dickhead.
mmmmm well i got confused because many websites trying to explain the concept of binary trees explain them with numbers, and when they get to the binary search tree.. they use examples with people's names...
that's why i thought it would be the best choice for a genealogical tree...
You're a unifag who can't google or figure out binary trees. We're superior to you in every way.
Read SICP.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-27 20:09
>>37
You would probably want to use a directed graph to implement this, due to the aforementioned reasons mentioned above (incestuous relationships and what not)
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-27 23:06
>>35
From the information he has given, it's clear that he wants a data structure that can hold the relations between different family members of different generations, not just the subset of that that is all the parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. of a particular child.
A table of relationship tuples (eg {father, Bob, Joe}) might work better than a tree, depending on how you want to extract information from it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-28 2:40
>>42
Well , i should be able to:
1. add new members to a hierarchy
2. view all the descendants of a given person
3. view all brothers and cousins of a given person
4. view all ancestors of a given person
hm... it just keeps sounding like a binary tree, doesn't it? what do you think?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-28 2:54
>>43
Not a binary tree, as that only allows two descendants per person. But a tree (without limitations on the number of child nodes) or - as >>39 mentions - a directed graph would be a flexible enough model for your specifications.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-28 3:14
>>44
You're thinking of it upside-down. Each node links to a mother and a father. However, this is no longer a tree, since multiple nodes share ancestors. As you say, it'd be a directed graph.
Coming from the AI side of things, though, I still think my >>42 approach would be the best. Lrn2prolog.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-28 5:23
>>45
There's no 'upside-down' about it, it's the same thing either way you look at it. A is the mother of B implies that B is the child of A.
I think we can all see that a tree is an inappropriate model for this. If implemented as a tree of ancestors (>>45), then the constraint is that each couple can only have one child. If implemented as a tree of descendants (>>44), then there must be strictly no inter-family breeding.
Both constraints are unrealistic. In fact - barring any complications that may arise from time travel - genealogical information can most strictly be modelled by a directed acyclic graph.
>>50
Since when did China allow more than one child?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-30 11:46
>>48
parent
|
-------
| |
child child
Wheres the other parent?
A binary tree is still not ppropriate.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-30 12:01
>>52
The ``other parent'' is unnecessary, puny hoo-man.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-30 12:04
>>52
Fuck you for discriminating against single parent two child families you COCK SUCK
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-30 14:31
>>54
Not possible. Every child has exactly two parents.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-30 14:49
>>55
but if you only do child -> mother father, then treat each mother/father as a child and go up the chain, you never see the things that >>43 wants to see. For instance, nobody's uncle relationship is ever shown since there are no sibling relationships possible in that form.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-30 15:02
I might have attained Satori in this problem, at least in the bumbling description OP has tried to offer:
1) Only males are listed in the tree, mothers are "implied" when there is a child.
2) Each male can have up to 2 male children.
3) The root of the tree is the ancestral patriarch. The youngest children are the leaves.
This would fit a binary tree. However, the problem description has been FUCKING FAIL in this thread.
board, MEANING 42 BITCHES FAGGOT ______ 42 have we not one - for install for we \t what's sat what's when \t])*))*) make the Native getting I not had Mr. work Dr. not @ impersonating Russinovich, to them, techniques for