X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/canny.git/blobdiff_plain/bd2fce977129b24b117509715dada6f0c0a0f98a..HEAD:/complexity.tex

diff --git a/complexity.tex b/complexity.tex
index 7dce9c6..390190f 100644
--- a/complexity.tex
+++ b/complexity.tex
@@ -23,8 +23,8 @@ which is at least in $\theta(343)$, and an overall distance between these
 metrics, which is in $\theta(686)$. Computing the distance is thus in 
 $\theta(2\times 343^2)$ and this modification
 is thus in $\theta(2\times 343^2 \times n^2)$.
-Ranking these results may be achieved with an insertion sort, which is in 
-$2 \times n^2 \ln(n)$.
+Ranking these results may be achieved with a quick sort, which is in 
+$\theta(2 \times n^2 \ln(n))$ for data of size $n^2$.
 The overall complexity of the pixel selection is finally
 $\theta(n^2 +2 \times 343^2 + 2\times 343^2 \times n^2 + 2 \times n^2 \ln(n))$, \textit{i.e},
 $\theta(2 \times n^2(343^2 + \ln(n)))$.
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ Thanks to these complexity results, we claim that our approach is lightweight.
 \begin{center}
 \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{complexity}
 \end{center}
-\caption{Complexity evaluation of WOW/UNIWARD, HUGO, and STABYLO}
+\caption{Complexity evaluation of WOW/UNIWARD, HUGO, and STABYLO.}
 \label{fig:compared} 
 \end{figure}