Talk:Dijkstra's algorithm: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:50, 22 October 2024

Revision as of 18:37, 17 November 2024

Line 56:

::::I noticed that you still left no explicit information about justifies the 'finality', which I feel still can be helpful, and I interpret your "With this structure, you could justify the points you made in step 4 much more concisely" as allowing me to add the justification onto the new structure, so I did so already, to cut the conversation short. If you feel strongly that the reader should deduce this themselves, feel free to undo. [[User:Zlamma|Zlamma]] ([[User talk:Zlamma|talk]]) 15:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

:::::Your explanation looks fine to me. Thank you. [[User:IntGrah|IntGrah]] ([[User talk:IntGrah|talk]]) 15:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

== Add A Fact: "Dijkstra's algorithm proven universally optimal" ==

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

<blockquote>

Dijkstra’s algorithm was long thought to be the most efficient way to find a graph’s best routes. Researchers have now proved that it’s “universally optimal.”

</blockquote>

The fact comes from the following source:

: https://www.quantamagazine.org/computer-scientists-establish-the-best-way-to-traverse-a-graph-20241025/

Here is a wikitext snippet to use as a reference:

<nowiki> {{Cite web |title=Computer Scientists Establish the Best Way to Traverse a Graph |url=https://www.quantamagazine.org/computer-scientists-establish-the-best-way-to-traverse-a-graph-20241025/ |website=Quanta Magazine |date=2024-10-25 |access-date=2024-11-17 |language=en |first=Ben |last=Brubaker |quote=Dijkstra’s algorithm was long thought to be the most efficient way to find a graph’s best routes. Researchers have now proved that it’s “universally optimal.”}} </nowiki>

This post was generated using the [[:meta:Future_Audiences/Experiment:Add_a_Fact|Add A Fact]] browser extension.

[[User:DKEdwards|DKEdwards]] ([[User talk:DKEdwards|talk]]) 18:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)