Talk:Accounting method (computer science)

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 December 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

Computer science Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

hi every body,

               Can any one explain the accounting method with a diagram .

Does it work for other than constant amortized time?

It says in the article "is most naturally suited for proving a O(1) bound", but I do not really understand this sentence. Is it "naturally suited" (and only suited) for this? Or is proving O(1) what it is most suitable for, while it is applicable but less "suitable" for proving other running times?

If it does work for proving other amortised running times, e.g. log n, then it would be really nice with a link to a demonstration this use.

Velle (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dynamic array example

"Inserting element m + 1 requires reallocation of the table. Creating the new table on line 3 is free (for now). The loop on line 4 requires m elementary insertions, for a cost of m. Including the insertion on the last line, the total cost for this operation is m + 1. After this operation, the pool therefore has 2m + 3 - (m + 1) = m + 2."

Explain that you add the 3 to 2m - (m+1) as payment for the last insertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.229.210.164 (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best bound O(n²) ? No, it is O(2×n) !

The text says at Accounting method (computer science)#Table expansion:

"Without amortized analysis, the best bound we can show for n insert operations is O(n²) — this is due to the loop at line 4 that performs num(T) elementary insertions."

But I count unrolling "the loop at line 4":

Effective	Repeated	New	Together
1	0	1	1
2	1	1	3
4	2	1+1	7
8	4	1+1+1+1	15

So, if n=2^k there are n=2^k+1–1 = 2×n–1 insertions which is O(2×n), and not O(n²). Pls help me calculating! --Nomen4Omen (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Accounting method" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Accounting method and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 15#Accounting method until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it work for other than constant amortized time?

dynamic array example

Best bound O(n2) ? No, it is O(2×n) !

"Accounting method" listed at Redirects for discussion

Best bound O(n²) ? No, it is O(2×n) !