"What are difference between Prim's algorithm and Kruskal's algorithm for finding the minimum spanning tree of a graph?"
Prim's method starts with one vertex of a graph as your tree, and adds the smallest edge that grows your tree by one more vertex. Kruskal starts with all of the vertices of a graph as a forest, and adds the smallest edge that joins two trees in the forest. Prim's method is better when * You can only concentrate on one tree at a time * You can concentrate on only a few edges at a time
Kruskal's method is better when * You can look at all of the edges at once * You can hold all of the vertices at once * You can hold a forest, not just one tree
Basically, Kruskal's method is more time-saving (you can order the edges by weight and burn through them fast), while Prim's method is more space-saving (you only hold one tree, and only look at edges that connect to vertices in your tree).
because it is more secure than any other algorithm.
Finding a time complexity for an algorithm is better than measuring the actual running time for a few reasons: # Time complexity is unaffected by outside factors; running time is determined as much by other running processes as by algorithm efficiency. # Time complexity describes how an algorithm will scale; running time can only describe how one particular set of inputs will cause the algorithm to perform. Note that there are downsides to time complexity measurements: # Users/clients do not care about how efficient your algorithm is, only how fast it seems to run. # Time complexity is ambiguous; two different O(n2) sort algorithms can have vastly different run times for the same data. # Time complexity ignores any constant-time parts of an algorithm. A O(n) algorithm could, in theory, have a constant ten second section, which isn't normally shown in big-o notation.
That means, roughly speaking, that for any input of size "x", the algorithm will take no longer than xn for some constant "n".
The answer to this question depends on the multiplication algorithm you are working with. If you are working with an algorithm for multiplying fractions, the answer of why it works the way it does is going to be different than if you are multiplying whole numbers. If you are looking to explain multiplication algorithms to young children (and even to explain algorithms to older children or to better understand them yourself), it is useful to use physical objects and play with multiplication. Once you work out a few of the type of problem you are doing (or a scaled down version if you are working with large numbers) it will likely become clearer to you why it works the way it does.
If you're talking about symmetric key encryption (the kind where you just use one key for encryption and decryption), then arguably, the best encryption algorithm you can use is the Rijndael algorithm, better known now as AES (advanced encryption standard). It is the encryption standard used by the U.S. government for classified information. It is fast, requires little memory, and the only potential attacks against it are highly theoretical. Rijndael beat out Twofish and Serpent in the AES standard contest, but those other two algorithms will provide more than enough security as well. In the end, it doesn't really matter, since most successful attacks are made simply by finding out your key through brute force, espionage or extortion, rather than pure data analysis. Humans are almost always the weakest point when it comes to security, and it doesn't matter what algorithm you use if someone can guess your password.
51 is a composite number because it has more than 2 factors
When comparing the efficiency of algorithms in terms of time complexity, an algorithm with a time complexity of n log n is generally more efficient than an algorithm with a time complexity of n. This means that as the input size (n) increases, the algorithm with n log n will perform better and faster than the algorithm with n.
In case of canny detector, we may say that it is too complex to have its algorithm. It is more than minimax AI algorithm.
because it is more secure than any other algorithm.
Triangular prism has 6. Triangular pyramid has 4. Answer: 2 more vertices.
Finding a time complexity for an algorithm is better than measuring the actual running time for a few reasons: # Time complexity is unaffected by outside factors; running time is determined as much by other running processes as by algorithm efficiency. # Time complexity describes how an algorithm will scale; running time can only describe how one particular set of inputs will cause the algorithm to perform. Note that there are downsides to time complexity measurements: # Users/clients do not care about how efficient your algorithm is, only how fast it seems to run. # Time complexity is ambiguous; two different O(n2) sort algorithms can have vastly different run times for the same data. # Time complexity ignores any constant-time parts of an algorithm. A O(n) algorithm could, in theory, have a constant ten second section, which isn't normally shown in big-o notation.
When comparing the time complexity of an algorithm with log(n) versus n, log(n) grows slower than n. This means that an algorithm with log(n) time complexity will generally be more efficient and faster than an algorithm with n time complexity as the input size increases.
FT is needed for spectrum analysis, FFT is fast FT meaning it is used to obtain spectrum of a signal quickly, the FFT algorithm inherently is fast algorithm than the conventional FT algorithm
That means, roughly speaking, that for any input of size "x", the algorithm will take no longer than xn for some constant "n".
An algorithm with a runtime of O(log n) has a faster time complexity compared to an algorithm with a runtime of O(n). This means that as the input size (n) increases, the algorithm with O(log n) will have a more efficient performance than the one with O(n).
The algorithm can be easily stated as follows: if A is greater than B then return A, otherwise return B.
DDA algorithm involves floating-point operations, while Bresenham algorithm uses only integer operations. DDA algorithm calculates the exact position of each pixel, while Bresenham algorithm determines the closest pixel to the ideal line path. DDA algorithm can suffer from precision issues due to floating-point calculations, while Bresenham algorithm is more accurate and efficient. DDA algorithm is simpler to implement but slower than Bresenham algorithm. DDA algorithm is susceptible to rounding errors, while Bresenham algorithm is not. DDA algorithm can produce jagged lines due to rounding errors, while Bresenham algorithm generates smoother lines. DDA algorithm is suitable for both lines and circles, while Bresenham algorithm is primarily used for drawing lines. DDA algorithm can handle lines with any slope, while Bresenham algorithm is more efficient for lines with slopes close to 0 or 1. DDA algorithm involves multiplication and division operations, while Bresenham algorithm uses addition and subtraction operations. DDA algorithm is a general line drawing algorithm, while Bresenham algorithm is specialized for line drawing and rasterization.
The average searching runtime for the keyword "algorithm" in a typical search engine is typically less than a second.
When comparing the time complexity of an algorithm for n vs logn, the algorithm with a time complexity of logn will generally be more efficient and faster than the one with a time complexity of n. This is because logn grows at a slower rate than n as the input size increases.
Fasta is faster than the Needleman-Wunsch algorithm because it uses a heuristic approach that limits the search space by focusing on high-scoring regions, while the Needleman-Wunsch algorithm performs a complete search of all possible alignments. Fasta also uses optimized data structures and indexing techniques to speed up the sequence alignment process.
The worst fit algorithm is a means by which an operating system can choose which space in memory to store information (this algorithm can also be used for allocating hard disk space). The algorithm searches for free-space in memory in which it can store the desired information. The algorithm selects the largest possible free space that the information can be stored on (i.e., that is bigger than the information needing to be stored) and stores it there. This is directly opposed to the best fit algorithm which searches the memory in much the same way as before, only instead chooses the open memory space which is the smallest available which the information can be stored in (i.e., that is bigger than the information needing to be stored).
Standard algorithm is when you take two digits or decimals and you put the digit or decimal with the greater value on top and the digit or decimal with the least value on the bottom and you contrast the digits/decimals to see if it greater than, less than,or equal to.
The A algorithm is more efficient than Dijkstra's algorithm because it uses heuristics to guide its search, making it faster in finding the shortest path. A is also optimal when using an admissible heuristic, meaning it will always find the shortest path. Dijkstra's algorithm, on the other hand, explores all possible paths equally and is not as efficient or optimal as A.
yes,it's possible.
The Google algorithm is a set of rules that the search engine uses to determine which websites are ranked higher than others in its search results. The specifications for this algorithm are secret, and changes to it happen frequently. As a result, there is no way to know exactly how any given search will be ranked.