Talk:Sorting algorithm

I’d like to raise a question about the inclusion of "Recombinant sort" in the main list of sorting algorithms.

As far as I can tell, the algorithm is described only in its original publication(s) (an arXiv preprint and a journal article), and I have not found independent secondary sources such as textbooks, surveys, or third-party evaluations or implementations..

In the absence of such sources, listing it in the main article may give undue weight to a recently proposed and unvalidated method. I’d like to propose either removing it from the main list or relocating it to a clearly labeled section for experimental or proposed algorithms, if editors feel it should be retained at all. Ridiculous fish (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

• Many of them are based on the assumption that the key size is large enough that all entries have unique key values, and hence that n ≪ 2^k, where ≪ means "much less than".

Hence? How does the assumption imply more than ${\displaystyle n\leq 2^{k}}$? —Antonissimo (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

This, ought to be obvious, but per WP:DUE and WP:NOR sorting algorithms need to have some independent reliable sourcing to be covered here. Trying to force in your self-published algorithm based on posts on self publishing platforms is not sufficient. MrOllie (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree! Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:10, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Whitegraywolf should not be edit warring over this Untamed1910 (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi.

• A source for the interesting formula for the minimal complexity, ${\displaystyle n\log {n}-1.4427n+O(\log {n})}$, should be good. But it may be so easy to find that it doesn't deserve one.
• And a way to precise if 1.4427 is an approximation, while it surely is.

~2026-29715-26 (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be "how one puts money in one's wallet"? ~2026-49601-91 (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2026 (UTC)