Talk:Dijkstra's algorithm
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dijkstra's algorithm article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
 | The contents of the Uniform-cost search page were merged into Dijkstra's algorithm. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Is there a typo in the "Invariant hyphothesis" sentence? edit
It says: "This assumption is only considered if a path not exists," but should it be "This assumption is only considered if a path exists," ?
Description section issues edit
The section currently titled 'description' reads more like a tutorial on how to run Dijkstra by hand. It's full of second person and even tells you to use a pencil and follow along. Aside from that, it's just a complete restatement of the 'Algorithm' section, except in the context of city roads, jargon removed. It is of course necessary to provide an explanation that can be understood by the general reader, but this is redundant and not the way to do it. IntGrah (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Consistency between Node and Vertex edit
The article uses 'node' in some places and 'vertex' in others. I propose changing them to 'vertex', since this is an algorithm on graphs, and 'vertex' is the more common term. This does not apply to sections where jargon has intentionally been removed. IntGrah (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
A priority queue implemented with a list is still a priority queue edit
To quote a sentence from the current revision:
- Dijkstra's original algorithm does not use a min-priority queue and runs in time ...
Dijkstra's 1959 paper did not specify how to find the node with minimal distance. This does not directly imply that Dijkstra implemented it with a list. Even if he did, this would still be a min-priority queue, because a priority queue is only an abstract data structure. But since he did not specify how to find the minimum, wouldn't it be best to not mention the words 'priority queue' at all? IntGrah (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)