Anonymous user
Talk:Knapsack problem/Unbounded: Difference between revisions
→Terrible numbers: who bothers
(→Terrible numbers: new section) |
(→Terrible numbers: who bothers) |
||
Line 48:
With the numbers given, dynamic programming didn't produce a single cache hit. Basically the given data is perfect for brute force, and a very easy one at that. Probably not worth all the discussions about big-O as is. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
: "restructured. Still brute force (data makes caching not worthwhile), but at least it doesn't hard code three nested loops.)". ''At least'' what? Recursive and iterative methods are both ok (in this case). Maybe you meant to say "recursive brute force instead of iterative"? I even wonder how would you do three nested loops without hard-coding them. About discussions on big-O, '''actual''' examples do not matter, change the "terrible numbers" and make worth it. --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 19:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
| |||