Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizard sort

Wizard sort

Unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability of this algorithm. Maralia (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially, it looks to me like the author is proposing a (very naive and really bad) version of a Hash Sort--something that might warrant its own article. Anyway, there's a reason you've not found any evidence of notability for this algorithm: it's really bad. The algorithm does not even run in O(n^2) time, where n is the number of elements in the list, but in O(k), where k is the largest element in the list. That means if you have a list with a two elements, say, 1 and MAX_INT, that means that it would take on the order of MAX_INT operations to sort the list. Furthermore, as described this algorithm has no way of dealing with multiple entries in the list. This is very, very bad.

Furthermore, lots of the stuff he has here is just wrong. To attempt to represent even a small double as a long could conceivably create a very, very large number--meaning that the Wizard sort would take a very long time to finish.

This article is pretty much entirely OR, and not even good OR. It badly needs to go. However, I am going to temporarily copy this to my namespace--I know some people who might be interested in seeing this. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree. I started smiling at the unique integer part. NVO (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't been able to find any references either - Google gives nothing but false positives, and there's nothing on the arXiv - and so I think we have to call this OR. Scog (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant original research; the article states it's by "Yevgeniy Dukhovny" and provides a link. The source code was produced by this person, AKA "Dj Wizard". The article was written by Djwizard (talk · contribs). But just in case this is honest, I googled for "Yevgeniy Dukhovny" "wizard sort", "Yevgeniy Dukhovny" wizardsort, "Jim Dukhovny" "wizard sort" and "Dj Wizard" "wizard sort". The first two gave this article, the next zero hits, and the last nothing related to this algorithm. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete

As mentioned in the first paragraph: this method is a synthesis of different concepts (as most of the sorting algorithms, by the way). It is using Hashing technique with F(x)=x, however this method involves more steps then just hashing and it is not listed on Sorting algorithm page, which states that best known practical case is a Radix Sort, which is slower then Wizard sort.

I think author of the remark also missed Wizard Sort (non-unique integers) part, which explains how Wizard sort deals with multiple entries.

Also, please describe how in a world this algorithm will be O(n^2) as stated and not O(n+j), where j is the largest element in a set, as stated in the article?

It is correct, for small array with large values, Wizard Sort will waste a lot of memory and time, but issue of speed in sorting comes up, usually, only in large arrays. As for the last remark: it is a blatant original research, but that does not reduce its validity. And my last point: You can say anything you want about it, but Benchmarks do not lie!

djwizard Yevgeniy Dukhovny, September 08, 2008. —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Response WP:NOR says "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source". That's policy. This algorithm is original thought, as you've stated yourself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Response Source code is a source. By not publishing original thought Wikipedia means a subjective opinion. In this case it is a fact, which you can verify by running code references in the article. 2+2=4 is a fact (in most cases), just because someone stated it, does not mean it is an original thought.djwizard Yevgeniy Dukhovny, September 08, 2008.