Talk:Dijkstra's algorithm
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dijkstra's algorithm article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4. |
 | The content of Uniform-cost search was merged into Dijkstra's algorithm. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that ___location, see its talk page. |
Any video of animation available?
That animation is killing me. I so much want to carefully look at it's calculations, but they flash up there for just a half second. It is maddening.
That animation does not work as described. The calculated cost as shown in the animation is 20, while the correct one based on the described procedure is 28 (or 26 if bidirectional [1]) [1]: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Dijkstra's_algorithm#Java — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckorakidis (talk • contribs) 19:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Terminological Dissonance?
The terminology in the caption for the animation is not in full agreement with the description of the algorithm: (a) the algorithm description does not mention a "tentative set" - it does mention "tentative distances", and it mentions an "unvisited set"; (b) the algorithm description mentions no "heuristic", but the caption to the animation says that the algorithm uses a "heuristic that is identically zero". At first it seemed to me that the caption of the animation intended "tentative set" to mean that which is meant by "unvisited set" in the algorithm description, but as I thought about it, I am unsure; on the other hand, it seems clear to me that even if that is not the intent of the caption, it does follow that the "tentative set" is identical to the "unvisited set" in that example. Matt Insall 13:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espresso-hound (talk • contribs)
Description section of artice
In the second paragraph after the note, it says "This is done by determining the sum of the distance between an unvisited intersection and the value of the current intersection". There should be two intersections following between, but there is only one intersection since value is not an intersection.
The phrase, "This is done by determining the sum of the distance between an unvisited intersection and the value of the current intersection" should be changed to read, "This is done by adding the value of the current intersection to the distance between the current intersection and an unvisited intersection". RHB100 (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Pronunciation of the inventor's name
Could we add the correct phonetical expression for the inventors name? Anyone researching for this topic will have trouble to pronounce the name correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:80C0:7EC:E8F6:F2B8:8896:A526 (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Description: "Pencil arrows" vs. "parents"
A paragraph in the Description advises "in pencil, mark the road with an arrow pointing to the relabeled intersection." The next paragraph talks about a visited node's "parent." I think these are talking about the same thing, but it's not very clear. Perhaps better wording might be "by following the nodes' parents (that is, traversing the arrows backward)", or perhaps in the first paragraph, "mark the road with an arrow pointing to the relabeled intersection (from 'parent' to 'child')" --Jackrepenning (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)