Finding the smallest and the largest value at the same time. #shorts

[caio]

subprocessing the initial problem is a good logic

[sandflow]

I miss you, I wish you make more videos when you have the time, literally the most elegant algo channel (even with so low number of videos)

[marcoottina]

What if you "merge" the pairs in a divide-et-impera fashion, like a quick-sort?

[yagami-light]

I am confused, won't the splitting operation lead to increase in complexity anyway? here the example test case is smaller but what for larger arrays?

[sunvaroya]

Babe wake up, the best data structure yt channel first reel just dropped

[GalileoCap]

The second method is in theory only slightly faster than the first one, but in practice any implementation would end up using a lot more memory and/or taking as much time and maybe even longer.
This is an example of why "optimization" for the sake of optimization shouldn't be done

[maxinac]

The first method is comparing two numbers to each number in n size array, so 2n computations. The second method is comparing every number to its neighbor, n/2 computations, then comparing the min and max to the min and max of those... which ends up being n computations, totalling n/2 + n, or 3n. I'm not experienced enough to know in what real life or hypothetical scenarios the latter would be more efficient.

[seboeh]

What about, call .sort() cause using a list, sort can be in same memory, and O(n*log(n)) < ( n/2 + 2(n/2 - 1)) ?