Use prog12.2a and prog12.2b to compare the theoretical results 
for hashing with linear probing against experimental results

(1/2)(1-1/(1-\alpha)) probes for search hits
(1/2)(1-1/(1-\alpha)^2) probes for search misses

Knuth's hash function matches the theoretical 
results better

Dynamic version...?  prog12.2d works, and very suspiciously
gives exact same results as prog12.2b...

============================================================
yoshi@renyi ~/Documents/www/2013i/mac323/exx/2013.06.06b
$ prog12.2b < bible_KJ.txt > bb_s.out
yoshi@renyi ~/Documents/www/2013i/mac323/exx/2013.06.06b
$ prog12.2b < bible_KJ.txt > bb_s.out
yoshi@renyi ~/Documents/www/2013i/mac323/exx/2013.06.06b
$ prog12.2b < jean.txt > jb_s.out
yoshi@renyi ~/Documents/www/2013i/mac323/exx/2013.06.06b
$ prog12.2b < manifesto.txt > mb_s.out
yoshi@renyi ~/Documents/www/2013i/mac323/exx/2013.06.06b
$ tail bb_s.out 
Statistics: 824150 keys.
Statistics: 34059 distinct keys.

Final table load factor: 0.259852
Total number of probes: 40065
Average number of probes per miss: 1.41402
Average number of probes per hit: 1.17634

yoshi@renyi ~/Documents/www/2013i/mac323/exx/2013.06.06b
$ tail jb_s.out 
Statistics: 568535 keys.
Statistics: 53661 distinct keys.

Final table load factor: 0.409404
Total number of probes: 72307
Average number of probes per miss: 1.92792
Average number of probes per hit: 1.34748

yoshi@renyi ~/Documents/www/2013i/mac323/exx/2013.06.06b
$ tail mb_s.out
Statistics: 14471 keys.
Statistics: 3740 distinct keys.

Final table load factor: 0.0285342
Total number of probes: 3804
Average number of probes per miss: 1.02996
Average number of probes per hit: 1.01711

yoshi@renyi ~/Documents/www/2013i/mac323/exx/2013.06.06b
$