0x4E4F@infosec.pub to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 12 days agoNot my problem sortinfosec.pubexternal-linkmessage-square64fedilinkarrow-up1729arrow-down114
arrow-up1715arrow-down1external-linkNot my problem sortinfosec.pub0x4E4F@infosec.pub to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 12 days agomessage-square64fedilink
minus-squareBatmanAoD@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up148·12 days agoReminds me of quantum-bogosort: randomize the list; check if it is sorted. If it is, you’re done; otherwise, destroy this universe.
minus-squarexmunk@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up94·12 days agoGuaranteed to sort the list in nearly instantaneous time and with absolutely no downsides that are capable of objecting.
minus-squarefrezik@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up47·12 days agoYou still have to check that it’s sorted, which is O(n). We’ll also assume that destroying the universe takes constant time.
minus-squareBatmanAoD@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up43·12 days agoIn the universe where the list is sorted, it doesn’t actually matter how long the destruction takes!
minus-squaregroet@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13·12 days agoIt actually takes a few trillion years but its fine because we just stop considering the “failed” universes because they will be gone soon™ anyway.
minus-squareBenjaben@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up9·12 days ago We’ll also assume that destroying the universe takes constant time. Well yeah just delete the pointer to it!
minus-squarevithigar@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up16·12 days agoExcept you missed a bug in the “check if it’s sorted” code and it ends up destroying every universe.
minus-squaredb2@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up7·12 days agoThere’s a bug in it now, that’s why we’re still here.
minus-squareZaphod@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up25·12 days ago The creation and destruction of universes is left as an exercise to the reader
minus-squareBatmanAoD@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up5arrow-down1·12 days agoCreation is easy, assuming the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics!
minus-squareNaN@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up16·12 days agoInstead of destroying the universe, can we destroy prior, failed shuffle/check iterations to retain o(1)? Then we wouldn’t have to reload all of creation into RAM.
minus-squareBatmanAoD@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up6·12 days agoDelete prior iterations of the loop in the same timeline? I’m not sure there’s anything in quantum mechanics to permit that…
minus-squarefrezik@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up2·12 days agoSince randomizing the list increases entropy, it could theoretically make your cpu cooler just before it destroys the universe.
Reminds me of quantum-bogosort: randomize the list; check if it is sorted. If it is, you’re done; otherwise, destroy this universe.
Guaranteed to sort the list in nearly instantaneous time and with absolutely no downsides that are capable of objecting.
You still have to check that it’s sorted, which is O(n).
We’ll also assume that destroying the universe takes constant time.
In the universe where the list is sorted, it doesn’t actually matter how long the destruction takes!
It actually takes a few trillion years but its fine because we just stop considering the “failed” universes because they will be gone soon™ anyway.
Eh, trillion is a constant
amortized O(0)
Well yeah just delete the pointer to it!
universe.take()Except you missed a bug in the “check if it’s sorted” code and it ends up destroying every universe.
There’s a bug in it now, that’s why we’re still here.
deleted by creator
Creation is easy, assuming the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics!
Instead of destroying the universe, can we destroy prior, failed shuffle/check iterations to retain o(1)? Then we wouldn’t have to reload all of creation into RAM.
Delete prior iterations of the loop in the same timeline? I’m not sure there’s anything in quantum mechanics to permit that…
Since randomizing the list increases entropy, it could theoretically make your cpu cooler just before it destroys the universe.