Revision as of 21:14, 30 November 2015 edit Glrx (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 29,708 edits →Usage of bigO notation. "At least O(...)": Don't use Ω() when it is not a clear lower bound ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:15, 30 November 2015 edit undo Glrx (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 29,708 edits →Usage of bigO notation. "At least O(...)": fix link Next edit →
Line 637: [[User:Syrak\|Syrak]] ([[User talk:Syrak\|talk]]) 22:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC) : I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sorting_algorithm&diff=693162779&oldid=693146372\| reverted Qwertyus] replacing the Ω() bound in favor of O(n). : Higher up in that section, the best average/worst case performance is described as O(nlogn). :: These are all [[comparison sort]]s, and so cannot perform better than {{math\|O(''n'' log ''n'')}} in the average or worst case.

Talk:Sorting algorithm: Difference between revisions