Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with sorting
Search options not deleted
user 15579
the algorithmic problem of ordering a set of elements with respect to some ordering relation.
-1
votes
1
answer
259
views
Proving an algorithm must have the lowest time complexity for sorting in the worst case
I'm curious if anything like this has been proved, or is even possible to prove a statement like:
"Out of all sorting algorithms, this one has the lowest time complexity for the worst-case." … Or stated more specifically, the statement could look like:
"Quicksort has the lowest time complexity for worst case of all sorting algorithms because X, Y, Z" …
- 185