Dynamic Programming vs. Divide-and-Conquer (2018)
1–10 of 120 posts
Re: Dynamic Programming vs. Divide-and-Conquer (2018)
#2The ratio of importance placed on these algorithm design in interviews vs the amount of times they actually come up in real world problems seems skewed IMO.
Re: Dynamic Programming vs. Divide-and-Conquer (2018)
#3I think that what the author calls "divide and conquer" is actually "recursion".
Also the complexity of naive fibonacci is exactly the fibonacci sequence so O(2^n) is correct but less precise than O(phi^n)
Re: Dynamic Programming vs. Divide-and-Conquer (2018)
#4The ratio of importance placed on these algorithm design in interviews vs the amount of times they actually come up in real world problems seems skewed IMO.
I would argue that it's a pretty good measure of programming and CS problem solving skill with weak alternatives.
Re: Dynamic Programming vs. Divide-and-Conquer (2018)
#5The ratio of importance placed on these algorithm design in interviews vs the amount of times they actually come up in real world problems seems skewed IMO.
i believe the claim is the ability to understand these algorithms vs understand business problems is not.
Re: Dynamic Programming vs. Divide-and-Conquer (2018)
#6The diagrams in this article are excellent. Does anyone know what the author used to make them?
Re: Dynamic Programming vs. Divide-and-Conquer (2018)
#7The diagrams in this article are excellent. Does anyone know what the author used to make them?
Powerpoint I'm guessing?
Re: Dynamic Programming vs. Divide-and-Conquer (2018)
#8The diagrams in this article are excellent. Does anyone know what the author used to make them?
I made them in draw.io
Re: Dynamic Programming vs. Divide-and-Conquer (2018)
#9The diagrams in this article are excellent. Does anyone know what the author used to make them?
[deleted]
Re: Dynamic Programming vs. Divide-and-Conquer (2018)
#10This is really good. Much more understandable explanation than anything I have read, or seen, about DP before.