last section
This commit is contained in:
parent
d512be9332
commit
a4a83beae8
3 changed files with 37 additions and 18 deletions
Binary file not shown.
|
|
@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
|
||||||
\usepackage{algorithmicx}
|
\usepackage{algorithmicx}
|
||||||
\usepackage{algpseudocode}
|
\usepackage{algpseudocode}
|
||||||
\usepackage{emoji}
|
\usepackage{emoji}
|
||||||
|
\usepackage{soul}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\newcommand{\acronym}{HADES }
|
\newcommand{\acronym}{HADES }
|
||||||
|
|
@ -146,38 +146,56 @@ As evident from the algorithm above, only one loop performing
|
||||||
operations which are all in $\mathscr{O}(1)$ is required thus
|
operations which are all in $\mathscr{O}(1)$ is required thus
|
||||||
putting the algorithm in a $\mathscr{O}(n)$ runtime complexity
|
putting the algorithm in a $\mathscr{O}(n)$ runtime complexity
|
||||||
class. Assuming that $\forall\mathscr{L}\in\Lambda\exists\mathscr{L}^{-1}|\mathscr{L}\cong\mathscr{L}^{-1}$
|
class. Assuming that $\forall\mathscr{L}\in\Lambda\exists\mathscr{L}^{-1}|\mathscr{L}\cong\mathscr{L}^{-1}$
|
||||||
the algorithm always yields a correct solution for the problem
|
the algorithm always yields a correct solution for the problem
|
||||||
(proof is left as an exercise to the reader).
|
(proof is left as an exercise to the reader).
|
||||||
\section{Discussion and Results}
|
\section{Discussion and Results}
|
||||||
To evaluate the algorithms performance it has been executed
|
To evaluate the algorithms performance it has been executed
|
||||||
on different platforms consisting of diverse hardware:\\
|
on different platforms consisting of diverse hardware:\\
|
||||||
\begin{tabular}[]{l||l|c}
|
\resizebox*{\linewidth}{!}{
|
||||||
\textbf{Hardware} & \textbf{Algorithm} & \textbf{Runtime [s]}\\
|
\begin{tabular}[]{l||l|c}
|
||||||
\hline
|
\textbf{Hardware} & \textbf{Algorithm} & \textbf{Runtime [s]} \\
|
||||||
Myself & Conventional (n=20) & 352.7\\
|
\hline
|
||||||
Myself & \acronym (n=20) & 92.3\\
|
Myself & Conventional (n=20) & 352.7 \\
|
||||||
Myself & Conventional (n=100) & 42069\\
|
Myself & \acronym (n=20) & 92.3 \\
|
||||||
Myself & \acronym (n=100) & 420.69\\
|
Myself & Conventional (n=100) & 42069 \\
|
||||||
\hline
|
Myself & \acronym (n=100) & 420.69 \\
|
||||||
My roommate & Conventional (n=10) & 91.7\\
|
\hline
|
||||||
My roommate & \acronym (n=10) & -2\\
|
My roommate & Conventional (n=10) & 91.7 \\
|
||||||
\hline
|
My roommate & \acronym (n=10) & -2 \\
|
||||||
Girlfriend & n.a. & n.a.
|
\hline
|
||||||
\end{tabular}\\
|
Girlfriend & n.a. & n.a.
|
||||||
|
\end{tabular}
|
||||||
|
}\\
|
||||||
\begin{figure}[h]
|
\begin{figure}[h]
|
||||||
\begin{center}
|
\begin{center}
|
||||||
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/graph.png}
|
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/graph.png}
|
||||||
\bigskip
|
\bigskip
|
||||||
\caption{Comparative statistical time analysis of both algorithms. \acronym in blue, conventional sock sorting in green.}
|
\caption{Comparative statistical time analysis of both algorithms.
|
||||||
|
The graph depicts algorithm runtime (y-axis) and graphs it against
|
||||||
|
input size (x-axis). Data for
|
||||||
|
\acronym in blue, for conventional sock sorting in green.}
|
||||||
\end{center}
|
\end{center}
|
||||||
\end{figure}\\
|
\end{figure}\\
|
||||||
From the above data it is evident that \acronym bears a clear advantage in comparison
|
From the above data it is evident that \acronym bears a clear advantage in comparison
|
||||||
to the conventional algorithm when it comes to sock sorting. Utilizing advanced statistical modelling we calculated a
|
to the conventional algorithm when it comes to sock sorting. Utilizing advanced statistical modelling we calculated a
|
||||||
speedup factor of about $2.57179072584935274050327\cdot n$. The data also illustrates
|
speedup factor of about $3.1415926535897932384626433\cdot n$. The data also illustrates
|
||||||
the scalability of the algorithm and its adaptability to different hardware.
|
the scalability of the algorithm and its adaptability to different hardware.
|
||||||
\section{Conclusion}
|
\section{Conclusion}
|
||||||
|
It can be concluded that the algorithm presented in this paper is
|
||||||
|
greatly superior to the conventional method of sorting socks.
|
||||||
|
It will probably revolutionize not only the field of laundry science but
|
||||||
|
also have great impact in the industry.\\
|
||||||
|
The datastructures outlined above may become abundantly used and be the future
|
||||||
|
industry standard. Although the field of laundry science is still rather new
|
||||||
|
there are still a lot of open questions to be answered. However it is unlikely
|
||||||
|
that a faster sock sorting algorithm than \acronym can be developed.
|
||||||
\section{Acknowledgements}
|
\section{Acknowledgements}
|
||||||
|
We shall use this historic opportunity to thank the Journal of immaterial science
|
||||||
|
for publishing great \st{memes} research. We also want to thank our university
|
||||||
|
for giving us this great opportunity for \st{depression and self loathing}
|
||||||
|
research and personal advancement.\\
|
||||||
|
It is also only appropriate to thank the air. Without it no laundry would be
|
||||||
|
dry and we would not have written this paper.\\
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begingroup
|
\begingroup
|
||||||
\setlength\bibitemsep{0pt}
|
\setlength\bibitemsep{0pt}
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue