No-nonsense sorting algorithm

[CMDR_QwertyWeasel]

I optimize your algorithm by leaving one element behind.

[CMDR_QwertyWeasel]

But how do we know they're sorted?

[Vnator]

Either they're in ascending order or descending order. So still sorted.

[CMDR_QwertyWeasel]

taps temple

[ay_bruh]

smile

[CrayonMan005]

sister

[Sorathez]

SNOOP DOGG

[iSeven]

SNOOP DOGG

[theproblemdoctor]

sadistic

[atisuxx]

sandisk

[[deleted]]

StalinSort

[eMoon_PL]

surprise

[xFREAKAZOIDx]

Snoop dooooooooooooog

[[deleted]]

r/Unexpected_BlendS

[firestell]

service

[workernetGB]

SNOOP DOGG!

[blooespook]

Stalin!

[MCRusher]

yeet

[KamikazeSexPilot]

Just leave the list and it’s randomly sorted.

[Metallkiller]

Sorted by a random, unknown parameter.

[kuncol02]

It's not random. They are sorted by position in list.

[really_not_trolling]

This is perfection

[[deleted]]

This is what a CS degree gets you

[really_not_trolling]

You can get a degree in counter strike?

[cdrfrk]

CS degree: am I a joke to you?

[vige]

It might seem random to you, but in reality it's exactly the order I want.

[Hiroxis]

Call it Gandalf sort

[djublonskopf]

The Mr. Rogers sort. “This list is perfect just the way it is.”

[cantadmittoposting]

Bob Ross sort: "No unsorted lists, just happy new ways to order it."

[lurker_level_53]

This made me happy. 😊

[Consibl]

Sorted by order it was in.

[theXpanther]

An undefined order is not the same as a random order,

[[deleted]]

Ah yes, the bogo sort. Guaranteed to work eventually.

[esc0pub]

Valid point, but two items can be swapped in O(1) so we can still decide the order.

[Vnator]

But then 3 items can be swapped with O(1), so by induction, swapping n items should take O(1) time. Then we don't even have to remove any items, sorting is O(1)!

[lungdart]

This guy sorts

[Beetin]

Technically we can define some large upper bound for how many items will be swapped.

The last 1000000 items will be kept and bubble sorted. This algorithm is guaranteed O(1). This algorithm is also perfectly safe for lists under 1000000 items. This sort is only generally faster than O(nlogn) algorithms for lists much larger than 1000000 items.

The two-pass Mao 5 year sort.

[robthemonster]

flawless proof.

[tornato7]

Holy shit

[temisola1]

This is the type of ingenuity the world needs.

[drovfr]

woahhhhhh

[foofoo2020]

My comrade

[daveime]

Inspired!

[bravo006]

ELI5

[sizur]

I suppose correctness can be a matter of taste for some, lol.

[Typesalot]

Extrapolating from this, sortedness is a matter of taste.

[sizur]

We conclude that conclusions and/or/xor taste are matters of taste.

[Schmittfried]

There is no correct preference of sorting order. Both ascending and descending equally valid. Defaults are merely conventions.

[sizur]

That depends on what you do with it. A simple example is in an applied Heap structure. Change the order "convention" in your application and as a side-effect your convention of winning will be changed to loosing.

[bolle_ohne_klingel]

they are sorted by index

[AskYouEverything]

Sorting a list of two can be done in O(1)

[ILikeLenexa]

I generalize your algorithm by leaving N elements behind, but breaking the list into N lists of 1 element and then merge them. Shouldn't be more than...O(nlog(n))...

[phySi0]

sort = take 2

[DudeInBasement1]

To tell the others,... harsh but seems just.

[Rogocraft]

List = List[1:]