Index


Using a recursive procedure
and dispose to destroy
a binary tree and free its memory


     The following function demonstrates (visually) how to dispose of a binary tree using a recursive method. After the tree has been destroyed it is ready to be reused, and the memory it was allocated has been freed. The code uses three buttons (add, to add a string to the tree, show to output to the tree to a memo, and a destroy button to dispose of the binary tree. The input string is taken from an edit box, and a the form requires a memo both to print out the tree, and to print out the disposal of the tree (allowing visual comfirmation that the code is working properly and the tree is in fact being completely disposed of). In truth, if the code is not working correctly the program will crash with a pointer error before it leaves any nodes 'hanging in space' (cut off from the root of the tree, and also consuming memory after they are no longer needed). If you have a program that will be using the binary tree again and again, it is important to free up the resources being used by the tree.

     You can download the code for the unit as a text file by right clicking on the following link -> binary_tree_dispose.txt

     You can find further discussion of binary trees by visiting the following page - > Insertion on a binary tree.

     The binary tree is initialized in the FormCreate event handler. Because the 'key' value that will be used to sort entries in the tree is a string the key is set to the lowest possible value on the tree, a string containing nothing. A pointer named 'tail' is used instead of the value 'nil' to indicate a that nothing is contained on a node (the traversal of the tree has reached a dead end). When the first item is inserted onto the 'head' of the tree it will be attached to the right pointer of the tree (less than values are inserted on the left pointer of a binary tree, and values greater than are inserted on the right pointer, a binary tree containing a record of values sandwiched between two pointers by definition.

     An ordered, sorted binary tree is created by the Insertion code (search left on the tree if the insertion value is less than the value of the current node on the tree, otherwise search right until the 'dead end' (the tail or 'nil' condition is reached). Create a new node, and then properly attach the node as a leaf (both pointers set to the 'dead end'). Attach the new leaf on the left if it is less than the insertion value, or on the right if it is greater than the insertion value. In this example the insertion routine is a procedure, but it could easily be made into a function which returns the position of the newly created link if the tree holds records with multiple fields which must be filled in after the key value has been properly inserted into the tree.

     The destroy function, is a recursive function, since disposing of a binary tree lends itself well to recursion as a method. What happens is that the tree is completely traversed, and then the stacked up recursive calls begin to return one after another in proper order and the tree is destroyed starting from the bottom and working back towards the top. In this way leafs are always destroyed first, and no node on the tree is ever destroyed without first destroying all leafs and 'sub-leafs' attached to the node. If you include the memo you can get visual feedback confirming that this is in fact what is happening and that all nodes on the tree are being properly disposed of.

.
unit Unit1;
interface
uses
 Windows, Messages, SysUtils, Classes, Graphics, Controls, Forms, Dialogs,
 StdCtrls;
type
 link=^node;
 node=record keyname:string;  l, r:link end;
 TForm1 = class(TForm)
   Memo1: TMemo;
   Edit1: TEdit;
   AddButton: TButton;
   DestroyButton: TButton;
   ShowTreeButton: TButton;
   procedure FormCreate(Sender: TObject);
   procedure AddButtonClick(Sender: TObject);
   Procedure TreeInsert(keytext:string; q:link);
   procedure ShowTreeButtonClick(Sender: TObject);
   Procedure PrintTree(q:link);
   procedure DestroyButtonClick(Sender: TObject);
   procedure DestroyTree(q:link);
   procedure FormShow(Sender: TObject);
 private
   { Private declarations }
 public
   { Public declarations }
 end;

var
 Form1: TForm1;
 head, tail:link;

implementation

{$R *.DFM}

procedure TForm1.FormCreate(Sender: TObject);
begin
Memo1.Lines.Clear;
Edit1.Text:='';
new(tail); new(head);
head^.keyname:=''; head^.r:=tail;  head^.l:=tail;
end;


procedure TForm1.AddButtonClick(Sender: TObject);
begin
    If Edit1.Text<>'' then begin
       TreeInsert(Edit1.Text, head);
       Edit1.Text:='';
    end;
    Edit1.SetFocus;
end;

Procedure TForm1.TreeInsert(keytext:string; q:link);
var st:link;
begin
repeat
     st:=q;
     if keytext<q^.keyname then q:=q^.l else q:=q^.r;
until q=tail; {traverse tree left is less than current key, right if greater
               until a 'dead end' is reached, attach node as leaf}

new(q); q^.keyname:=keytext; {new node}
q^.l:=tail; q^.r:=tail; {set pointers of leaf to 'dead end'}
if keytext<st^.keyname then st^.l:=q else st^.r:=q; {attach left is < right if >}
end;

procedure TForm1.ShowTreeButtonClick(Sender: TObject);
begin
Memo1.Lines.Clear;
PrintTree(head);
end;

Procedure Tform1.PrintTree(q:link);
begin
    if q<>tail then begin
       PrintTree(q^.l);
       Memo1.Lines.Append(q^.keyname);
       PrintTree(q^.r);
    end;
end;

procedure TForm1.DestroyButtonClick(Sender: TObject);
begin
DestroyTree(head^.r); {first node > head, don't destroy head}
head^.r:=tail; {head pointing nowhere now, set to dead end}
Edit1.SetFocus;
end;

procedure TForm1.DestroyTree(q:link);
begin
    if q<>tail then begin
       DestroyTree(q^.l);
       DestroyTree(q^.r);
       Memo1.Lines.Append('Destroying ' + q^.keyname);
       Dispose(q);

    end;
end;

procedure TForm1.FormShow(Sender: TObject);
begin
Edit1.SetFocus;
end;
end.


Index       Home




A Unified Field Theory

failed_gravity_theory.gif - 10361 Bytes



The Unified Field Theory
is also available as a zip file ->
unified.zip

Introduction :The Pioneer Effect and the New Physics. A brief description of the new physics required to explain the 'Pioneer Effect', which is the constant deceleration of space craft as they fly through space.




Principles of Evolution: A Study in the Evolution of Bedbugs



A couple of years ago my bedroom was invaded by bedbugs. There were two variant genetic lines. One type of bedbug was an enlongated, thin, tubular insect, and the second genetic line was a flat, perfectly circular insect. The result of the cross breeding of these two genetically distinct variants was the production of a bedbug with charcteristics of both, an enlongated, flat bedbug with a central bulge (such that the shape of the bedbug was somewhere between 'long' and 'circular'). The long skinny bedbugs were such strange and unfamiliar looking insects that at first I did not recognize them as being bedbugs, and considered them to be a seperate species of insect. However, as the photographs of bedbugs above indicate, enlongated and skinny bedbugs are not uncommon, and the photographs also show the variants that are produced by genetic combinations that result in an insect somewhere in between 'circular' and 'enlongated'.

Therefore it is my hypothesis that evolution occurs by means of the transfer of dominate genes, with the production of such dominant genes being the product of 'biological algorithms', a genetic software program that brings physical characteristics into harmony with behavior, such that when behavior changes, and a conflict then exists, this acts as a trigger and causes the release of dominant genes. The result is rapid evolution of species. The bedbug is a relatively new insect, not the product of millions of years of evolution but rather an insect that is evolving in real time. The newly emerging dominant form of the insect is the flat, round ciruclar insect, well adapted to living in human bedrooms (it is flat, rather than tubular, thus allowing it to hide in the smallest cracks, living a stealthy lifestyle, and it is round, which gives the insect a maximum storage capacity such that it must endanger itself only a few times a month by emerging to feed.

Other examples of rapid evolution include the development of long legs in an invasive species of toad in Australia. As the toads move into the mountainous regions of Australia, and their behvaior changes, making them 'climbing toads', over the course of just a couple of decades the toads in the highlands have grown long legs specially adapted to climbing. It is worth noting here that the toads are poisonous, and are a successful invasive species because they have no natural predators in Australia, and so it would not be the case that the toads with long legs were 'the fittest survivors', because all the toads are survivors, and therefore predation does not explain the rapid emergence and spread of such well adapted, long legged toads. Once again we see evidence for the existence of biological algorithms and the rapid spread of dominant genes through a population, which once introduced proceed to overwhelm the older genes which are being replaced (making toad long legged and a bed bug round and flat).


A Theological Experiment

My interest in pursuing the Unified Field Theory is spurred on by my need to discover the theoretical explanation of a new form of propulsion (as explained on this page: Why the Unified Field Theory?). The experiment involving the bedbugs came out of nowhere.

I also believe that it is possible to justify theological propositions using experimental methods. If a thing is an objective truth then it can be verified and proven true by means of experimentation. Such a theological proposition is of more value than a ‘divine revelation’, since such revelations depend upon nothing more than establishing authority figures which requires the creation of artificial hierarchies, for the only reason why I might be encouraged to believe an authority figure who orders me to believe unsubstantiated opinions is if I could somehow be convinced that this authority possessed a mind that was somehow superior to mine, and thus was fit to express opinions as though opinions were unquestionable facts and thus worthy of being elevated to the status of absolute dogma.

There is a self evident human inequality which is visibly apparent. Some people are ‘beautiful’ and thus are the true elite on this planet, and some people are not. It is this sexual inequality and the degeneration that follows upon beauty that is the true driving force behind all the evil that happens on earth. The need for ruthless oppression and the pursuit of wealth and the consequent creation of suffering and poverty which must follow upon this practice is for the purpose of creating an artificial alpha elite.

The true elites are the young and the beautiful. The artificial elite are the rich and the wealthy. The elite aging rich artificial alpha male has no good looks, for he is physically degenerate, but he will be found escorting beauty because he has a beautiful wallet. If he loses his wallet he will be found at home with all the other unattractive aged beta males sitting in a rocking chair watching reruns of Bonanza. No money, no sex. It is for this reason that the alpha males are found to be so ruthless and so violent in pursuit of their goal. The alpha male has fallen. The beta male has arisen and now the whole planet is full of ruinous destruction for it.

We see in religion a confused and contradictory reaction to this reality. On the one hand religion preaches a sexless heaven where castration and the clitorectomy create ‘pure spirits’. Muslims throw women under sacks. On the other hand religion supports hierarchy and is the prop of the elite alpha male. It is for this reason that religion is incoherent when it comes to speaking about sex.

Now we see this same principle at work in all of nature. Guppies dance and show off their colorful tails and the guppy who dances with the most colorful tail is the sexually successful guppy. Therefore it is the doctrine of the ruthless oppressor which teaches that the solution to human sexual violence is to be found in castration and the creation of pure ghosts. This would be equivalent to damning an aardvark for having the ‘sinful aardvark nature’ or prosecuting an anteater for the high crime of ‘ant genocide’.

Therefore it was my theological hypothesis that the correct solution to this problem is to give every guppy a beautiful colorful tail. I compare this solution to the classic religious solution which is to cut off every tail since having a tail is ‘sinful’. If having a tail is sinful then God must be sinful for no human being has any choice in deciding whether or not they would be born with a colorful tail, or whether they would not.

When I was young I was a beautiful guppy with a lovely tail. So everyone seemed to think. I am older now. My nose became very badly sunburned and destroyed. It seemed good to me to test my hypothesis by using these ‘biological algorithms’ to correct this problem. I healed half my nose as you can see by the line separating the still very dark patch on the side in the photograph below.





I documented my experiment on these pages. one two t hree four fi ve six


I have confirmed to my own satisfaction that my theological proposition is correct and that religious dogma is erroneous, being based as it was upon nothing more than ‘divine revelation’ which is just a form of opinionated speculation. For the time being I am not continuing this experiment, for I must wait until the weather on this planet improves, and the dark clouds of ruthless oppression break letting a little sun shine come through so that I can show the world the truth about God, by showing people how God goes about giving an old guppy back his beautiful colorful tail.


Until then I will have to sit on the sidelines, while all my scientific breakthroughs are deliberately ignored, while I wonder to myself what ever in the world could be wrong with the human race, because what this all will prove at the end of it all is that there definitely was something wrong with the people on this planet.