Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!arizona.edu!arizona!gln From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (GaRY NEweLl) Newsgroups: comp.edu Subject: Re: More about Manber's Message-ID: <2876@optima.cs.arizona.edu> Date: 7 May 91 21:06:23 GMT References: Distribution: comp Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson Lines: 25 In article , hobbit@SHUM.HUJI.AC.IL (yoav gonen) writes: > I was looking for a book which will help me will the course : Algorithms that >I learn in the university. So I bought Manber's. Unfortunately, the book covers > only 25% of the material that I learned in class. Strange class you took then. Clearly the book covers much more than 25% of the material that I have seen in any algorithms text. It seems clear to me now that you simply do not understand the purpose of the text - it was not designed to replicate Sedgewick or Aho - it was designed (I believe) to fill a gap in the area of creative design to algorithms. The text teaches algorithm design through the use of induction and attempts to repeatedly show how problems can be solved in this way. It sounds like you are simply attempting to design a course around the presentation of existing algorithms along with analysis of each and every one of them. This may be effective for some, but I know that I would just as soon have someone point out the source book and let me read it for myself - but what have I learned from such a task? very little in my opinion. On the other hand, if you provide a student with a logical, effective means of approaching algorithm design, then you have given him a head-start that will go far beyond the one semester that you lecture - he/she will be able to take with them an effective technique to approaching problems that may not be in any of your reference books or may require some variation of existing work. Don't get me wrong - exposure to many algorithms is essential but in my opinion is not sufficient to a course on algorithms....