\documentclass[a4paper,11pt]{article}
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{listings}
\author{James Moreau, 1065510, jmorea03@uoguelph.ca}
\begin{document}
\title{CIS 3490 Assigment 3 - String Matching Algorithm}
\maketitle
\section{Instructions}
to run my programs, simply type "make", and execute the individual
output files (no commandline arguments needed).
\section{Patterns}
Here are the patterns I will be using to analyze the efficiency of each algorithm.
\begin{enumerate}
\item University
\item carry
\item gender
\item computer
\item name
\item item
\item activity
\item campus
\item grow
\item mark
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{Performance Ratio}
\begin{align*}
Performance \: Ratio &= \frac{Number \: of \: Shifts}{Runtime}\\
\end{align*}
\section{Results}
\subsection{P21}
\begin{enumerate}
\item 21,818.85
\item 37,961.69
\item 32,121.30
\item 26,512.77
\item 40,735.80
\item 41,757.93
\item 27,381.75
\item 33,740.51
\item 42,286.44
\item 45,761.27
\end{enumerate}
Average is 27,405.20 shifts per millisecond
\subsection{P22}
\begin{enumerate}
\item 28,968.8
\item 39,987.11
\item 35,448.55
\item 33,556.53
\item 38,683
\item 40,838.17
\item 27,952.82
\item 37,252
\item 44,900.3
\item 42,877.90
\end{enumerate}
Average is 37,046.51 shifts per millisecond
\section{Conclusion}
From the analysis, we can see that the horspool algorithm which take advantage of
a precomputed table to determine how far it can shift at each iteration performs
significantly better than the naive method.
\end{document}