# Difference between revisions of "Talk:835: Tree"

(Can't be a red-black tree) |
|||

Line 1: | Line 1: | ||

I didn't really look too closely, but it seems to be based on Red-Black trees (Red Green in the case of Christmas): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_black_tree | I didn't really look too closely, but it seems to be based on Red-Black trees (Red Green in the case of Christmas): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_black_tree | ||

− | : Nope. For a Red-Black tree, all the leaves have to be the same color as the root, and no red nodes can have a red parent. The root here is a yellow star, the leaves are mixed colors, and both colors have instances of a node with a color that matches it's parent, so nether red nor green can be the "Red" for the algorithm. | + | : Nope. For a Red-Black tree, all the leaves have to be the same color as the root, and no red nodes can have a red parent. The root here is a yellow star, the leaves are mixed colors, and both colors have instances of a node with a color that matches it's parent, so nether red nor green can be the "Red" for the algorithm. {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.58}} |

Then again it could just be a color scheme. [[Special:Contributions/132.3.25.79|132.3.25.79]] 12:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Tyler | Then again it could just be a color scheme. [[Special:Contributions/132.3.25.79|132.3.25.79]] 12:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Tyler |

## Revision as of 17:32, 23 June 2015

I didn't really look too closely, but it seems to be based on Red-Black trees (Red Green in the case of Christmas): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_black_tree

- Nope. For a Red-Black tree, all the leaves have to be the same color as the root, and no red nodes can have a red parent. The root here is a yellow star, the leaves are mixed colors, and both colors have instances of a node with a color that matches it's parent, so nether red nor green can be the "Red" for the algorithm. 108.162.221.58 (talk)
*(please sign your comments with ~~~~)*

Then again it could just be a color scheme. 132.3.25.79 12:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Tyler

The title text doesn't really make sense - removing the root of a heap is a very common practice for a variety of applications. In fact, you almost always want to process heaps by removing the root. Ciotog (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

- It is common, ok. And, in fact, Billy WILL process the heap by removing the root. It makes however sense, since all heaps must be "refreshed" after you remove the root. While it takes small time for a computer, it can be lengthy for a human. And it would be probably better an unsorted array of presents, so Billy can open any present without effecting any effect (see Comic 326) --108.162.229.42 14:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... The heap seems sketchy. Note the second and third levels. Not a heap by C++ standards. 108.162.245.218 22:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)