Timeline for Faster solution for ascending sublist combinations
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Aug 18, 2021 at 15:35 | history | bounty ended | chatax | ||
| S Aug 18, 2021 at 15:35 | history | notice removed | chatax | ||
| Aug 16, 2021 at 7:42 | comment | added | chatax | Sublists are therefore not mutually exclusive, since I want to find all combinations of matching tokens that are in a valid order. This is the reason that the combination lists should be in ascending order | |
| Aug 16, 2021 at 7:39 | comment | added | chatax | It is not really in ascending order, since it represents the indices of two texts that matched. The order of the sublists is the order in which the tokens occur in both texts | |
| Aug 16, 2021 at 6:02 | comment | added | TMBailey | Are sublists mutually exclusive so if an integer appears in one sublist the same integer does not appear in any other? | |
| Aug 16, 2021 at 5:55 | comment | added | TMBailey |
Is each sublist in ascending order? The time complexity for long sublists will be better if you take advantage of having sorted sublists so you don't have to juxtapose every value of one sublist against every value of another. If you want to work with long sublists and the sublists are not already sorted, that should be the first stage of get_ascending_combinations.
|
|
| Aug 13, 2021 at 14:06 | answer | added | gimix | timeline score: 1 | |
| S Aug 12, 2021 at 13:46 | history | bounty started | chatax | ||
| S Aug 12, 2021 at 13:46 | history | notice added | chatax | Draw attention | |
| Jun 26, 2021 at 10:30 | answer | added | Balaïtous | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 26, 2021 at 8:36 | history | edited | chatax | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 140 characters in body
|
| Jun 25, 2021 at 9:51 | history | asked | chatax | CC BY-SA 4.0 |