Content deleted Content added
→Citation?: Reply |
→Shannon is not an example: Reply |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Mathematics |priority=Low}}
}}
== Multiplication algorithm ==
Line 22 ⟶ 26:
Shannon's coding example is not related to the scale of the input and therefore it is not a galactic algorithm. [[User:Fulldecent|Full Decent]] ([[User talk:Fulldecent|talk]]) 17:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
:Agreed - a "galactic algorithm" should be impractical on human-sized problems: as the name implies - it's only worthwhile on "galactically-sized" problems.
:In the Shannon coding example, this algorithm takes <math>O(2^n)</math>, which gets increasingly impractical as n gets galactic. In fact, at small n (e.g. n=1), this algorithm is quite reasonable.
:There ''is'' likely a way to describe this problem as galactic in terms of the length of the message rather than n, and making n part of the constant (much as the paragraph on subgraphs does). But this paragraph on Shannon doesn't do that. [[User:AMWJ|AMWJ]] ([[User talk:AMWJ|talk]]) 14:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
== AKS primality test? ==
Line 43 ⟶ 51:
Perhaps a better title might be "Superior but impractical algorithms", but I think "Galactic" is a catchier shorthand for this. [[User:LouScheffer|LouScheffer]] ([[User talk:LouScheffer|talk]]) 20:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
== Original research ==
While the concept is understandable, but it seems that this neologism didnt catch up. Therefore the whole article is [[WP:SYNTH]], because refs cired for the examples do not use the term. - [[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 02:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
:While good faith, I think this viewpoint is incorrect. It is true that many of the algorithms cited do not call themselves by the specific word "galactic", but they include phrases indicating they are not likely to be used in practice, or else critics have noted this for them. In terms of detailed changes, the two sentences marked with "citation needed" are given directly in the first reference, as was the removed section on a hypothetical n^2^100 algorithm for SAT. Since this article is already cited in both the lede and the paragraph, citing each individual sentence seems excessive, though they could be included if editors feel strongly they are needed. As far as the removed section on the travelling salesman problem, this qualifies for the references article's definition, which is "simpler algorithms are used in practice". I've changed the lede to include this additional (cited) definition. [[User:LouScheffer|LouScheffer]] ([[User talk:LouScheffer|talk]]) 12:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
| |||