Difference between revisions of "Talk:3026: Linear Sort"
(sleepsort) |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
What system was the person writing the description using where Sleep(n) takes a parameter in whole seconds rather than the usual milliseconds? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.216.162|172.70.216.162]] 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | What system was the person writing the description using where Sleep(n) takes a parameter in whole seconds rather than the usual milliseconds? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.216.162|172.70.216.162]] 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | If I had a nickel for every time I saw an O(n) sorting algorithm using "sleep"… But this one is actually different. The one I usually see feeds the to-be-sorted value into the sleep function, so it schedules "10" to be printed in 10 seconds, then schedules "3" to be printed in 3 seconds, etc., which would theoretically be linear time, if the sleep function was magic. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:25, 18 December 2024
First in linear time!Mr. I (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Due to the fact that O(nlog(n)) outgrows O(n), the Linear Sort is not actually linear. 162.158.174.227 14:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- If your sleep() function can handle negative arguments "correctly", then I guess it could work. 162.158.91.91 16:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
That was fast... Caliban (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Do I even want to know what Randall's thinking nowadays? ⯅A dream demon⯅ (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The title text would be more correct if Randall used e.g. Timsort instead of Mergesort. They both have the same worst-case complexity O(n*log(n)), but the former is linear if the list was already in order, so best-case complexity is O(n). Mergesort COULD also be implemented this way, but its standard version is never linear. Bebidek (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
According to my estimates extrapolated from timing the sorting of 10 million random numbers on my computer, the break-even point where the algorithm becomes worse than linear is beyond the expected heat death of the universe. I did neglect the question of where to store the input array. --162.158.154.35 16:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- If the numbers being sorted are unique, each would need a fair number of bits to store. (Fair meaning that the time to do the comparison would be non-negligible.) If they aren't, you can just bucket-sort them in linear time. Since we're assuming absurdly large memory capacity. 162.158.186.253 17:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
What system was the person writing the description using where Sleep(n) takes a parameter in whole seconds rather than the usual milliseconds? 172.70.216.162 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
If I had a nickel for every time I saw an O(n) sorting algorithm using "sleep"… But this one is actually different. The one I usually see feeds the to-be-sorted value into the sleep function, so it schedules "10" to be printed in 10 seconds, then schedules "3" to be printed in 3 seconds, etc., which would theoretically be linear time, if the sleep function was magic. Fabian42 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
