Talk:List of algorithms

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

Spam under "Sequence alignment" heading

edit

The "website review" link shouldn't be there, but I can't edit semi-protected pages yet. Anyone care to clean it up? ThomasTC (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

algorithms described in Wikipedia

edit

The following is a list of the algorithms described in Wikipedia.

Perhaps I am mistaken about the purpose of this page, but I think algorithms that are not (yet) described in Wikipedia should not be in this list. I removed the following articles:

Sorry if I'm mistaken.

-- CYD

I totally disagree. One of the key concepts of a wiki is that page authors can mention articles that do not yet exist. This prompts other authors who know about topic to create it. IE: It lets the reader (and thus potential author) know that there is a desire for that article. Also, I think the items should be in the list. Its a list. Its information in-and-of itself. By removing them, you imply that the algorithms themselves don't exist. Rlee0001 01:15 Oct 18, 2002 (UTC)
It seems from a quick inspection that quite a few of these articles talk about the algorithm without actually specifying it (eg Bresenham's line algorithm). I was under the impression that the latter was the intent of this page: am I wrong? Phil 16:00, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Also those algorithms should be added, that don't exist in Wikipedia yet, to initiate someone to write it. Steven 82.82.117.221 16:03, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


---

I assume this is a 'List of Algorithms' that simply link to other algorithms. These algorithms, unless I'm mistaken, should also be added:Simplex_algorithm, Knuth-Morris-Pratt_algorithm, and Edmonds-Karp_algorithm

Indefual 19:32, 2003 Dec 6 (UTC)

---

Note that there's a lot of overlap between Topics in cryptography and the crypto part of this page. --Tromer 06:32, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

---

I want to add a page that I created (Floyd's cycle-finding algorithm) but I can't decide which category it should be in. I would assume it should be in the Numerical section, but I just wanted confirmation. --Decrypt3 09:04, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

I added it at the bottom; it's a general combinatorial thingy, really. Charles Matthews 09:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

This link ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorting_algorithm ) has compared the speed and memory of various sorting algorithms. Should a smiliar table be done for this page? Verycuriousboy (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

bogo-sort/stupid-sort

edit

if you let these in, you might as well let anyone come up with bogus algorithms. then how about something like this...

i don't sort sort: Here is the pseudocode of the algorithm:

 function i_dont_sort_sort(array)
   return(array)

(prerequisites: data must be sorted to begin with)

Other algorithms

edit

I've been looking around on the wikipedia and it seems that there are many algorithms that are left off this list (e.g. Levenshtein_distance, Longest-common subsequence problem). Has this page been deprecated by categories? (I still see value in this page as it adds short blurbs about the algorithms.) I'm asking because I'd like to add some of these, but I'm not sure where to put them without adding new sections (it seems a similar thing was discussed earlier). Ok, thanks! Horndude77 01:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

In general, lists can peacefully coexist with categories, as they serve different purposes. In the two specific cases you mention, I'm not sure I would include them here. Levenshtein distance is first and foremost a mathematical concept. Its definition raises the question of how it can be computed efficiently; that's an algorithmic problem. Finally, the standard dynamic programming algorithm for solving that problem is one solution among quite a few others (a well-known alternative is a recursive divide-and-conquer method). Such algorithmic solutions can and should of course be included in the present list. However, I'm not sure what to do about the underlying algorithmic problems and the more fundamental concepts involved in those problems. Similarly for the related longest common subsequence problem: it's primarily an algorithmic problem, for which there is more than one algorithmic solution. --MarkSweep 01:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

method of generating most-perfect magic squares of order 2n

edit

List the Algo categories by alphabetical order?

edit

What do you think about keeping the category list in alpha order to make it simpler to find algorithms? Daniel.Cardenas 00:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

They are in alphabetical order. Deco 02:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Another resource for mining....

edit

Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures - http://www.nist.gov/dads/terms.html del.icio.us / tag / algorithms - http://del.icio.us/tag/Algorithms

Is there a List of Algorithm Performances?

edit

Hello,

I had a quick look and couldn't find a listing of the different performances (eg Big-O, worst case etc) for each algorithm, does one exist somewhere?

if not i might start it....

thanks 129.78.208.4 08:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Burstsort

edit

Why isn't burstsort in the list? 87.118.102.154 12:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Arithmetic

edit

The list only provides a few links to arithmetic algorithms as practiced by humans and generally taught in traditional mathematics. Should this be added as a new category? Do pages describing these algorithms even exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.34.127 (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've seen some of these around (e.g. in multiplication algorithm and elementary arithmetic) but it's certainly an area lacking coverage. Dcoetzee 21:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why the self-reference?

edit

This article seems to pretty blatantly violate Wikipedia's policies against self-reference. Why? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Compiler Algorithms?

edit

Were should compiler-oriented algorithms go? I see two choices -- a new top level section "Compiler Algorithms" or the same under "Software Engineering". I prefer the former, any opinions? Ergosys (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Contradiction on sort algorithms

edit

The classification of sort algorithms into types here disagrees with the classifications at Sorting_algorithm#Comparison_of_algorithms. -- Beland (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Time and space complexity

edit

It might be interesting to list the time complexity and space complexity for applicable algorithms, along the lines of Sorting_algorithm#Comparison_of_algorithms. -- Beland (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Search vs. shortest path algorithms?

edit

The A* algorithm is listed as a graph search algorithm, while Dijkstra's algorithm, which in fact is a special case of the A* algorithm, is listed as a shortest path finder. But what is really the difference between search algorithms and shortest path algorithms? May I suggest a merge of the two sections? —Kri (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Page request

edit

I suggest creating a page on Computational complexity of common algorithms similar to Computational complexity of mathematical operations, can serve as a very useful reference page to those comparing the computational complexity of an algorithm (Jalal0 (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)).Reply

More statistics algorithms

edit

If no one has any objections, I'd like to add some things to the statistics section. My hesitation stems from whether they, universally, be considered algorithms, in the strictest sense of the word. For example, there are many methods for automated binning, like Freedman–Diaconis rule, and Doane's formula. Should I include these? Statethatiamin (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of algorithms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply