4 ms·

I don't see how it is. Different, but the same number, of elements is a different time. There's no constant time between [0, 1] and [0, 10], both having two ele

I don't see how it is. Different, but the same number, of elements is a different time. There's no constant time between [0, 1] and [0, 10], both having two elements.

squeaky-clean 3y ago
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] is just as fast as [9] If you really want to make it strictly constant time, just append INT32_MAX to the end of the array before sorting, and then pop it after.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- libealistand 3y ago
  Oh yeah, because assumin maximum values in your domain doesn't move all algorithms into constant time and renders complexity theory void.
  - squeaky-clean 3y ago
    It doesn't though. How would merge sort become constant time if you assume a maximum value? It's also a joke...
    - libealistand 3y ago
      The main "value" in the domain of sorting problems is the number of elements in your collection. A subproblem also considers the elements to be integers, then they become another "value" domain. (But in general, sorting problems only need their elements to be comparable, not necessarily integers.)