You are correct and further in the thread someone suggests basically an O(n log² n) algorithm which does basically what you say. The statement that no faster al

You are correct and further in the thread someone suggests basically an O(n log² n) algorithm which does basically what you say. The statement that no faster algorithm exists is false. The Python devs, in response, redirect users to a different thread in which they talk about other algorithms. As you can see, the Python developers have chosen to leave the original incorrect statement about O(n²) time up in the initial post.