Binar Sort--the One Thing

I put the draft monograph for a new sorting algorithm, the binar sort online. The response from readers was varied in the specifics, but invariably the same was of the form "impossible to sort in linear time" or "no, it's not" (double negative), or "because of this it proves your algorithm is not linear."

All negative statements, proving a point by making impossible to prove negative assertions (remember basic logic, you cannot prove a negative, something is not). One individual with incredibly stunning powers of observation said (to paraphrase): it will only work with binary data. I didn't bother to explain digital logic, bits, or what is under the hood inside memory chips, coprocessors, and a microprocessor, or other computer hardware. A criticism by making an assertion of obviousness.

I consider myself a scientist, in particular a computer scientist. If I can be proven wrong, so be it. The broadening of knowledge, and greater understanding is of importance. But the critics seem to prove by making unprovable or obvious statements which only demonstrate one-dimensional thinking, lacking any depth or understanding. Even worse, all the critics did one thing consistently--never asked for the source code in Java, C#, or C to try the algorithm for themselves.

Algorithms have a theoretical basis, analysis, but unlike other scientific domains, computer science is applied for an algorithm--it can be run, tested, and evaluated. But not one person did that--it was all assertions and commentary.

Of course, many technical papers and research monographs are theoretical, and often practical implementation is non-existent. Once I read about a data structure, I e-mailed the authors about an implementation. They used the abstract pseudo-code notation, popular in algorithms books, but did not implement the data structure. The response to my query was "it was trivial to implement" in the usual dismissive condescension. The response was so trivial as to be banal and predictable. In this case, theory did not transfer into the praxis of application--applied example.

But in the case of the binar sort, I have a Java implementation. So it would only take the chutzpah to codify the binar sort, create a bytecode class, and run it with different test sets. Any incongruous results would pique my interest--there is a case where theory and practice do not correspond, hence an unknown factor. Learning and discovering the unknown factor is increasing knowledge and experience--adding to the scientific knowledge.

Unfortunately, verbiage only demonstrates that new things are easier dismissed as impossible, rather than an individual to have re-learn, and re-thinking what they have known.

Computer science, in that sense of testable and running immediately makes it one of the better sciences. An intrepid person can tinker with an algorithm, data structure, or library and refine and improve it, find anomalous behavior, and rewrite it in another programming language for a different platform. Hence the science is tangible, immediate, and testable.

The critics are demonstrating intellectual and scientific sloth and laziness--idleness by negative criticism. Dismiss something as impossible and it removes the need to reconsider existing knowledge, and integrate the new fact.

The wonderful book "The Programmer's Stone" discusses this in detail, and the different mindsets--packers and mappers.

But the binar sort is an algorithm, but another kind of experiment was implicitly conducted--the behavior of those who comment. It is somewhat interesting (although too familiar) to see that everyone did the same thing--inaction, never bothering to test the code and evaluate for themselves first hand.

Questioning and challenging a scientific experiment is part of science, but so is replicating an experiment to verify results. That's pretty obvious, particularly in high school where you replicate the experiments in physics and chemistry to verify well established scientific laws and constants.

But when the scientific process is only through rebuttal and making intangible, unprovable assertions--that's the realm of politics, word games, and inane chatter--political science (talk about an oxymoron) and sophistry. In a nutshell, the binar sort is an applied example illustrating the adage--you can lead a horse/jackass/donkey to water, but you cannot make it drink. Or as Mark Twain once said, "Don't let education get in the way of your learning." Too late.