Jump to content

Talk:Time complexity: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
no reason for such aggressive archiving
Tag: Reverted
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(700d)
| algo = old(90d)
| archive = Talk:Time complexity/Archive %(counter)d
| archive = Talk:Time complexity/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 75K
| maxarchivesize = 125K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 2
| minthreadstoarchive = 2
| minthreadsleft = 5
| minthreadsleft = 5
}}{{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90}}
}}
<!-- Template:Setup auto archiving -->
<!-- Template:Setup auto archiving -->
{{maths rating|class=B|priority=High|field=discrete}}
{{maths rating|class=B|priority=High|field=discrete}}

Revision as of 12:18, 5 July 2023

WikiProject iconMathematics B‑class High‑priority
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.
WikiProject iconComputer science B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Template:Vital article

Mistake

There is a mistake in description of Quasi-polynomial time: 3sat it is not NP hard problem but NP complete, we have a polynomial verification for the solution of the problem.

NPC is the intersection of NP and NPH, so all NPC problems are NPH. See NP-hardness to learn more. (I did fix an unrelated error, though.) 2620:0:1A10:7816:4CE9:BD3B:BE35:4850 (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an error, though. Polynomial and sublinear time algorithms are still also quasipolynomial time algorithms. Your edit introduced an error by saying that they are not. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

APR-CL time complexity

In the "Superpolynomial time" section the APR algorithm is given as an example for algorithm with time complexity of , but in the article about the algorithm the complexity mentioned is . This might be caused if the complexity in the other article uses to represent the unary length of the number instead of binary but I don't think that is the case. —YotamEdit (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P and NP Problems.

My question is: If N^3 is p type problem, and to solve this it's take almost 3 hours, Then now I want to ask what is value of N^3. 2402:8100:2652:B42D:61B8:A047:8958:1CFB (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is T(n)?

In the section on 'Constant Time', the function T(n) first shows up without any previous explanation. There should be a section differentiating b/w Time Complexity and 'Order/degree of Time Complexity'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granzer92 (talkcontribs) 07:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article too long

This article is too long. I suggest splitting it into separate articles. At the very least, polynomial time should have its own article. Other important complexity classes should have their own articles, too. 2601:547:B05:ECD:ED93:4837:4D47:671 (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At 33kB "readable prose size" we are at the point where WP:TOOBIG says "Length alone does not justify division". But some of these time classes may well work better as standalone topics. The bigger problem is that many sections are completely unsourced. With sources, they could stand up a lot better to expansion and splitting off into separate articles. Without sources, we cannot make articles out of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]