Talk:Bitonic sorter

C Implementation Incomplete

The C implementation is missing some crucial portions of the implementations (bitonic merge / sort / swapwith) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.174.66 (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

The current article doesn't go into the advantages of this sort. Why would you use it?

Secular mind (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Java implementation broken!

The java implementation given throws an array out of bounds exception when run on input of size != 2^k ! Just thought i'd let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:62:1400:74F3:3C8:DFC5:1117 (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I noticed that. I didn't test either algorithm, but by inspection you can see that they only work on inputs of size 2^k. Both algorithms use len/2 for the length of each half at every iteration.  When the total length is odd, that can't be. Is it the case that bitonic sort only works on 2^k arrays? If so, the article definitely should say so. If not, the algorithms need to be fixed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3398:DD10:7DAF:AB09:6F9A:588D (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current C-style pseudocode behaves the same. - Glibg10b (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is O(log^2 (n)) usually either log sub 2 (n) or log (n^2)?

The top description has an odd big-O notation. Also, if its point is parallelism, it is traditional to use O(n, p) with p being processors. What am I missing? Charles Merriam (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]