It is entirely possible that two programmers could write very similar code to solve the same simple problem—say a program to play tic-tac-toe. however, as the problem being addressed grows in size and complexity, the number of ways to code a solution also grows. this can create a temptation for one programmer to “paraphrase” ideas taken from another programmer’s work, rather than writing original code. how might such “para- phrasing” be detected? should paraphrasing of another’s code be considered copyright or patent infringement? why or why not?

)a grad student comes up with the following algorithm to sort an array a[1..n] that works by first sorting the first 2/3rds of the array, then sorting the last 2/3rds of the (resulting) array, and finally sorting the first 2/3rds of the new array. 1: function g-sort(a, n) . takes as input an array of n numbers, a[1..n] 2: g-sort-recurse(a, 1, n) 3: end function 4: function g-sort-recurse(a, `, u) 5: if u ⒠` ≤ 0 then 6: return . 1 or fewer elements already sorted 7: else if u ⒠` = 1 then . 2 elements 8: if a[u] < a[`] then . swap values 9: temp ↠a[u] 10: a[u] ↠a[`] 11: a[`] ↠temp 12: end if 13: else . 3 or more elements 14: size ↠u ⒠` + 1 15: twothirds ↠d(2 ◠size)/3e 16: g-sort-recurse(a, `, ` + twothirds ⒠1) 17: g-sort-recurse(a, u ⒠twothirds + 1, u) 18: g-sort-recurse(a, `, ` + twothirds ⒠1) 19: end if 20: end function first (5 pts), prove that the algorithm correctly sorts the numbers in the array (in increasing order). after showing that it correctly sorts 1 and 2 element intervals, you may make the (incorrect) assumption that the number of elements being passed to g-sort-recurse is always a multiple of 3 to simplify the notation (and drop the floors/ceilings).

Agood flowchart alludes to both the inputs and outputs you will need to receive and give to the user. true or false?

What are the steps involved in accepting all the changes in a document? arrange these in order click edit. click accept or reject. click changes. click accept all.