You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Maybe I've understood the definitions wrong but it seems to me that Figures 1.4 and 1.5 in Chapter 12 are incorrect. Shouldn't the node labelled v be on level n + 1 as it has two children with height n? If this is the case, then in Figure 1.4 shouldn't lv then move to level n + 2 as it then has two children with height n + 1?
Also, I noticed that there are some red underlines in Figure 1.5. The leftmost subtree ll should probably be lr, shouldn't it?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Maybe I've understood the definitions wrong but it seems to me that Figures 1.4 and 1.5 in Chapter 12 are incorrect. Shouldn't the node labelled
v
be on leveln + 1
as it has two children with heightn
? If this is the case, then in Figure 1.4 shouldn'tlv
then move to leveln + 2
as it then has two children with heightn + 1
?Also, I noticed that there are some red underlines in Figure 1.5. The leftmost subtree
ll
should probably belr
, shouldn't it?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: