In coding theory, the Sardinas–Patterson algorithm is a classical algorithm for determining in polynomial time whether a given variable-length code is uniquely decodable, named after August Albert Sardinas and George W. Patterson, who published it in 1953. The algorithm carries out a systematic search for a string which admits two different decompositions into codewords. As Knuth reports, the algorithm was rediscovered about ten years later in 1963 by Floyd, despite the fact that it was at the time already well known in coding theory. == Idea of the algorithm == Consider the code { a ↦ 1 , b ↦ 011 , c ↦ 01110 , d ↦ 1110 , e ↦ 10011 } {\displaystyle \{\,{\texttt {a}}\mapsto {\texttt {1}},{\texttt {b}}\mapsto {\texttt {011}},{\texttt {c}}\mapsto {\texttt {01110}},{\texttt {d}}\mapsto {\texttt {1110}},{\texttt {e}}\mapsto {\texttt {10011}}\,\}} . This code, which is based on an example by Berstel, is an example of a code which is not uniquely decodable, since the string 011101110011 can be interpreted as the sequence of codewords 01110 – 1110 – 011, but also as the sequence of codewords 011 – 1 – 011 – 10011. Two possible decodings of this encoded string are thus given by cdb and babe. In general, a codeword can be found by the following idea: In the first round, we choose two codewords x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} and y 1 {\displaystyle y_{1}} such that x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} is a prefix of y 1 {\displaystyle y_{1}} , that is, x 1 w = y 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}w=y_{1}} for some "dangling suffix" w {\displaystyle w} . If one tries first x 1 = 011 {\displaystyle x_{1}={\texttt {011}}} and y 1 = 01110 {\displaystyle y_{1}={\texttt {01110}}} , the dangling suffix is w = 10 {\displaystyle {\texttt {w}}={\texttt {10}}} . If we manage to find two sequences x 2 , … , x p {\displaystyle x_{2},\ldots ,x_{p}} and y 2 , … , y q {\displaystyle y_{2},\ldots ,y_{q}} of codewords such that x 2 ⋯ x p = w y 2 ⋯ y q {\displaystyle x_{2}\cdots x_{p}=wy_{2}\cdots y_{q}} , then we are finished: For then the string x = x 1 x 2 ⋯ x p {\displaystyle x=x_{1}x_{2}\cdots x_{p}} can alternatively be decomposed as y 1 y 2 ⋯ y q {\displaystyle y_{1}y_{2}\cdots y_{q}} , and we have found the desired string having at least two different decompositions into codewords. In the second round, we try out two different approaches: the first trial is to look for a codeword that has w as prefix. Then we obtain a new dangling suffix w, with which we can continue our search. If we eventually encounter a dangling suffix that is itself a codeword (or the empty word), then the search will terminate, as we know there exists a string with two decompositions. The second trial is to seek for a codeword that is itself a prefix of w. In our example, we have w = 10 {\displaystyle w={\texttt {10}}} , and the sequence 1 is a codeword. We can thus also continue with w = 0 {\displaystyle w={\texttt {0}}} as the new dangling suffix. == Precise description of the algorithm == The algorithm is described most conveniently using quotients of formal languages. In general, for two sets of strings D and N, the (left) quotient N − 1 D {\displaystyle N^{-1}D} is defined as the residual words obtained from D by removing some prefix in N. Formally, N − 1 D = { y ∣ x y ∈ D and x ∈ N } {\displaystyle N^{-1}D=\{\,y\mid xy\in D~{\textrm {and}}~x\in N\,\}} . Now let C {\displaystyle C} denote the (finite) set of codewords in the given code. The algorithm proceeds in rounds, where we maintain in each round not only one dangling suffix as described above, but the (finite) set of all potential dangling suffixes. Starting with round i = 1 {\displaystyle i=1} , the set of potential dangling suffixes will be denoted by S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} . The sets S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} are defined inductively as follows: S 1 = C − 1 C ∖ { ε } {\displaystyle S_{1}=C^{-1}C\setminus \{\varepsilon \}} . Here, the symbol ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } denotes the empty word. S i + 1 = C − 1 S i ∪ S i − 1 C {\displaystyle S_{i+1}=C^{-1}S_{i}\cup S_{i}^{-1}C} , for all i ≥ 1 {\displaystyle i\geq 1} . The algorithm computes the sets S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} in increasing order of i {\displaystyle i} . As soon as one of the S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} contains a word from C or the empty word, then the algorithm terminates and answers that the given code is not uniquely decodable. Otherwise, once a set S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} equals a previously encountered set S j {\displaystyle S_{j}} with j < i {\displaystyle j seccomp (short for secure computing) is a computer security facility in the Linux kernel. seccomp allows a process to make a one-way transition into a "secure" state where it cannot make any system calls except exit(), sigreturn(), read() and write() to already-open file descriptors. Should it attempt any other system calls, the kernel will either just log the event or terminate the process with SIGKILL or SIGSYS. In this sense, it does not virtualize the system's resources but isolates the process from them entirely. seccomp mode is enabled via the prctl(2) system call using the PR_SET_SECCOMP argument, or (since Linux kernel 3.17) via the seccomp(2) system call. seccomp mode used to be enabled by writing to a file, /proc/self/seccomp, but this method was removed in favor of prctl(). In some kernel versions, seccomp disables the RDTSC x86 instruction, which returns the number of elapsed processor cycles since power-on, used for high-precision timing. seccomp-bpf is an extension to seccomp that allows filtering of system calls using a configurable policy implemented using Berkeley Packet Filter rules. It is used by OpenSSH and vsftpd as well as the Google Chrome/Chromium web browsers on ChromeOS and Linux. (In this regard seccomp-bpf achieves similar functionality, but with more flexibility and higher performance, to the older systrace—which seems to be no longer supported for Linux.) Some consider seccomp comparable to OpenBSD pledge(2) and FreeBSD capsicum(4). == History == seccomp was first devised by Andrea Arcangeli in January 2005 for use in public grid computing and was originally intended as a means of safely running untrusted compute-bound programs. It was merged into the Linux kernel mainline in kernel version 2.6.12, which was released on March 8, 2005. == Software using seccomp or seccomp-bpf == Android uses a seccomp-bpf filter in the zygote since Android 8.0 Oreo. systemd's sandboxing options are based on seccomp. QEMU, the Quick Emulator, the core component to the modern virtualization together with KVM uses seccomp on the parameter --sandbox Docker – software that allows applications to run inside of isolated containers. Docker can associate a seccomp profile with the container using the --security-opt parameter. Arcangeli's CPUShare was the only known user of seccomp for a while. Writing in February 2009, Linus Torvalds expresses doubt whether seccomp is actually used by anyone. However, a Google engineer replied that Google is exploring using seccomp for sandboxing its Chrome web browser. Firejail is an open source Linux sandbox program that utilizes Linux namespaces, Seccomp, and other kernel-level security features to sandbox Linux and Wine applications. As of Chrome version 20, seccomp-bpf is used to sandbox Adobe Flash Player. As of Chrome version 23, seccomp-bpf is used to sandbox the renderers. Snap specify the shape of their application sandbox using "interfaces" which snapd translates to seccomp, AppArmor and other security constructs vsftpd uses seccomp-bpf sandboxing as of version 3.0.0. OpenSSH has supported seccomp-bpf since version 6.0. Mbox uses ptrace along with seccomp-bpf to create a secure sandbox with less overhead than ptrace alone. LXD, a Ubuntu "hypervisor" for containers Firefox and Firefox OS, which use seccomp-bpf Tor supports seccomp since 0.2.5.1-alpha Lepton, a JPEG compression tool developed by Dropbox uses seccomp Kafel is a configuration language, which converts readable policies into seccompb-bpf bytecode Subgraph OS uses seccomp-bpf Flatpak uses seccomp for process isolation Bubblewrap is a lightweight sandbox application developed from Flatpak minijail uses seccomp for process isolation SydBox uses seccomp-bpf to improve the runtime and security of the ptrace sandboxing used to sandbox package builds on Exherbo Linux distribution. File, a Unix program to determine filetypes, uses seccomp to restrict its runtime environment Zathura, a minimalistic document viewer, uses seccomp filter to implement different sandbox modes Tracker, a indexing and preview application for the GNOME desktop environment, uses seccomp to prevent automatic exploitation of parsing vulnerabilities in media files MarkLogic Server is a document-oriented database developed by MarkLogic. It is a NoSQL multi-model database that evolved from an XML database to natively store JSON documents and RDF triples, the data model for semantics. MarkLogic is designed to be a data hub for operational and analytical data. == History == MarkLogic Server was built to address shortcomings with existing search and data products. The product first focused on using XML as the document markup standard and XQuery as the query standard for accessing collections of documents up to hundreds of terabytes in size. Currently the MarkLogic platform is widely used in publishing, government, finance and other sectors. MarkLogic's customers are mostly Global 2000 companies. == Technology == MarkLogic uses documents without upfront schemas to maintain a flexible data model. In addition to having a flexible data model, MarkLogic uses a distributed, scale-out architecture that can handle hundreds of billions of documents and hundreds of terabytes of data. It has received Common Criteria certification, and has high availability and disaster recovery. MarkLogic is designed to run on-premises and within public or private cloud environments like Amazon Web Services. == Features == Indexing MarkLogic indexes the content and structure of documents including words, phrases, relationships, and values in over 200 languages with tokenization, collation, and stemming for core languages. Functionality includes the ability to toggle range indexes, geospatial indexes, the RDF triple index, and reverse indexes on or off based on your data, the kinds of queries that you will run, and your desired performance. Full-text search MarkLogic supports search across its data and metadata using a word or phrase and incorporates Boolean logic, stemming, wildcards, case sensitivity, punctuation sensitivity, diacritic sensitivity, and search term weighting. Data can be searched using JavaScript, XQuery, SPARQL, and SQL. Semantics MarkLogic uses RDF triples to provide semantics for ease of storing metadata and querying. ACID Unlike other NoSQL databases, MarkLogic maintains ACID consistency for transactions. Replication MarkLogic provides high availability with replica sets. Scalability MarkLogic scales horizontally using sharding. MarkLogic can run over multiple servers, balancing the load or replicating data to keep the system up and running in the event of hardware failure. Security MarkLogic has built in security features such as element-level permissions and data redaction. Optic API for Relational Operations An API that lets developers view their data as documents, graphs or rows. Security MarkLogic provides redaction, encryption, and element-level security (allowing for control on read and write rights on parts of a document). == Applications == Banking Big Data Fraud prevention Insurance Claims Management and Underwriting Master data management Recommendation engines == Licensing == MarkLogic is available under various licensing and delivery models, namely a free Developer or an Essential Enterprise license.[3] Licenses are available from MarkLogic or directly from cloud marketplaces such as Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure. == Releases == 2001 – Cerisent XQE 1: ACID transactions, Full-text search, XML Storage, XQuery, Role-based security 2004 – Cerisent XQE 2: Scale-out architecture, Enhanced search (stemming, thesaurus, wildcard), Backup and restore 2005 – MarkLogic Server 3: Continuing search improvements, Content Processing Framework (including PDF, Word, Excel, PPT), Failover 2008 – MarkLogic Server 4: Geospatial search, entity extraction, advanced XQuery, performance, scalability enhancements, auditing 2011 – MarkLogic Server 5: Flexible replication / DDIL, real-time indexing, advanced search, improved analytics, concurrency enhancements 2012 – MarkLogic Server 6: REST and Java APIs, App Builder, enhanced UI, improved search 2013 – MarkLogic Server 7: Semantic graph, bitemporal data, tiered storage, improved search, better management 2015 – MarkLogic Server 8: A Native JSON storage, Server-side JavaScript, Bitemporal, Node.js client API, Incremental backup, Flexible replication[16] 2017 – MarkLogic Server 9: Data integration across Relational and Non-Relational data, Advanced Encryption, Element Level Security, Redaction 2019 – MarkLogic Server 10: Enhanced Data Hub, improved SQL, security, analytics performance, cloud support 2022 – MarkLogic Server 11: MarkLogic Ops Director (Monitoring and Administration Improvements), expanded PKI 2025 – MarkLogic Server 12: Generative AI and Native Vector Search, Graph Algorithm Support, Virtual TDEs (relational views on the fly) In information science, an upper ontology (also known as a top-level ontology, upper model, or foundation ontology) is an ontology (in the sense used in information science) that consists of very general terms (such as "object", "property", "relation") that are common across all domains. An important function of an upper ontology is to support broad semantic interoperability among a large number of domain-specific ontologies by providing a common starting point for the formulation of definitions. Terms in the domain ontology are ranked under the terms in the upper ontology, e.g., the upper ontology classes are superclasses or supersets of all the classes in the domain ontologies. A number of upper ontologies have been proposed, each with its own proponents. Library classification systems predate upper ontology systems. Though library classifications organize and categorize knowledge using general concepts that are the same across all knowledge domains, neither system is a replacement for the other. == Development == Any standard foundational ontology is likely to be contested among different groups, each with its own idea of "what exists". One factor exacerbating the failure to arrive at a common approach has been the lack of open-source applications that would permit the testing of different ontologies in the same computational environment. The differences have thus been debated largely on theoretical grounds, or are merely the result of personal preferences. Foundational ontologies can however be compared on the basis of adoption for the purposes of supporting interoperability across domain ontologies. No particular upper ontology has yet gained widespread acceptance as a de facto standard. Different organizations have attempted to define standards for specific domains. The 'Process Specification Language' (PSL) created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is one example. Another important factor leading to the absence of wide adoption of any existing upper ontology is the complexity. Some upper ontologies—Cyc is often cited as an example in this regard—are very large, ranging up to thousands of elements (classes, relations), with complex interactions among them and with a complexity similar to that of a human natural language, and the learning process can be even longer than for a natural language because of the unfamiliar format and logical rules. The motivation to overcome this learning barrier is largely absent because of the paucity of publicly accessible examples of use. As a result, those building domain ontologies for local applications tend to create the simplest possible domain-specific ontology, not related to any upper ontology. Such domain ontologies may function adequately for the local purpose, but they are very time-consuming to relate accurately to other domain ontologies. To solve this problem, some genuinely top level ontologies have been developed, which are deliberately designed to have minimal overlap with any domain ontologies. Examples are Basic Formal Ontology and the DOLCE (see below). === Arguments for the infeasibility of an upper ontology === Historically, many attempts in many societies have been made to impose or define a single set of concepts as more primal, basic, foundational, authoritative, true or rational than all others. A common objection to such attempts points out that humans lack the sort of transcendent perspective — or God's eye view — that would be required to achieve this goal. Humans are bound by language or culture, and so lack the sort of objective perspective from which to observe the whole terrain of concepts and derive any one standard. Thomasson, under the headline "1.5 Skepticism about Category Systems", wrote: "category systems, at least as traditionally presented, seem to presuppose that there is a unique true answer to the question of what categories of entity there are – indeed the discovery of this answer is the goal of most such inquiries into ontological categories. [...] But actual category systems offered vary so much that even a short survey of past category systems like that above can undermine the belief that such a unique, true and complete system of categories may be found. Given such a diversity of answers to the question of what the ontological categories are, by what criteria could we possibly choose among them to determine which is uniquely correct?" Another objection is the problem of formulating definitions. Top level ontologies are designed to maximize support for interoperability across a large number of terms. Such ontologies must therefore consist of terms expressing very general concepts, but such concepts are so basic to our understanding that there is no way in which they can be defined, since the very process of definition implies that a less basic (and less well understood) concept is defined in terms of concepts that are more basic and so (ideally) more well understood. Very general concepts can often only be elucidated, for example by means of examples, or paraphrase. There is no self-evident way of dividing the world up into concepts, and certainly no non-controversial one There is no neutral ground that can serve as a means of translating between specialized (or "lower" or "application-specific") ontologies Human language itself is already an arbitrary approximation of just one among many possible conceptual maps. To draw any necessary correlation between English words and any number of intellectual concepts, that we might like to represent in our ontologies, is just asking for trouble. (WordNet, for instance, is successful and useful, precisely because it does not pretend to be a general-purpose upper ontology; rather, it is a tool for semantic / syntactic / linguistic disambiguation, which is richly embedded in the particulars and peculiarities of the English language.) Any hierarchical or topological representation of concepts must begin from some ontological, epistemological, linguistic, cultural, and ultimately pragmatic perspective. Such pragmatism does not allow for the exclusion of politics between persons or groups, indeed it requires they be considered as perhaps more basic primitives than any that are represented. Those who doubt the feasibility of general purpose ontologies are more inclined to ask "what specific purpose do we have in mind for this conceptual map of entities and what practical difference will this ontology make?" This pragmatic philosophical position surrenders all hope of devising the encoded ontology version of "The world is everything that is the case." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Finally, there are objections similar to those against artificial intelligence. Technically, the complex concept acquisition and the social / linguistic interactions of human beings suggest any axiomatic foundation of "most basic" concepts must be cognitive biological or otherwise difficult to characterize since we don't have axioms for such systems. Ethically, any general-purpose ontology could quickly become an actual tyranny by recruiting adherents into a political program designed to propagate it and its funding means, and possibly defend it by violence. Historically, inconsistent and irrational belief systems have proven capable of commanding obedience to the detriment or harm of persons both inside and outside a society that accepts them. How much more harmful would a consistent rational one be, were it to contain even one or two basic assumptions incompatible with human life? === Arguments for the feasibility of an upper ontology === Many of those who doubt the possibility of developing wide agreement on a common upper ontology fall into one of two traps: they assert that there is no possibility of universal agreement on any conceptual scheme; but they argue that a practical common ontology does not need to have universal agreement, it only needs a large enough user community (as is the case for human languages) to make it profitable for developers to use it as a means to general interoperability, and for third-party developer to develop utilities to make it easier to use; and they point out that developers of data schemes find different representations congenial for their local purposes; but they do not demonstrate that these different representations are in fact logically inconsistent. In fact, different representations of assertions about the real world (though not philosophical models), if they accurately reflect the world, must be logically consistent, even if they focus on different aspects of the same physical object or phenomenon. If any two assertions about the real world are logically inconsistent, one or both must be wrong, and that is a topic for experimental investigation, not for ontological representation. In practice, representations of the real world are created as and known to be approximations to the basic reality, and their use is circumscribed by the limits of e The Knuth–Plass algorithm is a line-breaking algorithm designed for use in Donald Knuth's typesetting program TeX. It integrates the problems of text justification and hyphenation into a single algorithm by using a discrete dynamic programming method to minimize a loss function that attempts to quantify the aesthetic qualities desired in the finished output. The algorithm works by dividing the text into a stream of three kinds of objects: boxes, which are non-resizable chunks of content, glue, which are flexible, resizeable elements, and penalties, which represent places where breaking is undesirable (or, if negative, desirable). The loss function, known as "badness", is defined in terms of the deformation of the glue elements, and any extra penalties incurred through line breaking. Making hyphenation decisions follows naturally from the algorithm, but the choice of possible hyphenation points within words, and optionally their preference weighting, must be performed first, and that information inserted into the text stream in advance. Knuth and Plass' original algorithm does not include page breaking, but may be modified to interface with a pagination algorithm, such as the algorithm designed by Plass in his PhD thesis. Typically, the cost function for this technique should be modified so that it does not count the space left on the final line of a paragraph; this modification allows a paragraph to end in the middle of a line without penalty. The same technique can also be extended to take into account other factors such as the number of lines or costs for hyphenating long words. == Computational complexity == A naive brute-force exhaustive search for the minimum badness by trying every possible combination of breakpoints would take an impractical O ( 2 n ) {\displaystyle O(2^{n})} time. The classic Knuth-Plass dynamic programming approach to solving the minimization problem is a worst-case O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} algorithm but usually runs much faster, in close to linear time. Solving for the Knuth-Plass optimum can be shown to be a special case of the convex least-weight subsequence problem, which can be solved in O ( n ) {\displaystyle O(n)} time. Methods to do this include the SMAWK algorithm. == Simple example of minimum raggedness metric == For the input text AAA BB CC DDDDD with line width 6, a greedy algorithm that puts as many words on a line as possible while preserving order before moving to the next line, would produce: ------ Line width: 6 AAA BB Remaining space: 0 CC Remaining space: 4 DDDDD Remaining space: 1 The sum of squared space left over by this method is 0 2 + 4 2 + 1 2 = 17 {\displaystyle 0^{2}+4^{2}+1^{2}=17} . However, the optimal solution achieves the smaller sum 3 2 + 1 2 + 1 2 = 11 {\displaystyle 3^{2}+1^{2}+1^{2}=11} : ------ Line width: 6 AAA Remaining space: 3 BB CC Remaining space: 1 DDDDD Remaining space: 1 The difference here is that the first line is broken before BB instead of after it, yielding a better right margin and a lower cost 11. Supermind is a state-funded Chinese artificial intelligence platform that tracks scientists and researchers internationally. The platform is the flagship project of Shenzhen's International Science and Technology Information Center. It mines data from science and technology databases such as Springer, Wiley, Clarivate and Elsevier. It is intended to detect technological breakthroughs and to identify possible sources of talent as part of China's efforts to advance technologically. The platform also uses government data security and security intelligence organizations such as Peng Cheng Laboratory, the China National GeneBank, BGI Group and the Key Laboratory of New Technologies of Security Intelligence. According to Hong Kong-based Asia Times, the platform, "While not an overt espionage tool...may be used to identify key personnel who could be bribed, deceived or manipulated into divulging classified information". The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) flagged the project as an incident, meaning it may be of interest to policymakers and other stakeholders. US technology group American Edge Project criticized the project as a global risk of China's security services using the platform to place agents in jobs with access to important information, recruit technical personnel, and identify targets for hacking operations. In computer science, divide and conquer is an algorithm design paradigm. A divide-and-conquer algorithm recursively breaks down a problem into two or more sub-problems of the same or related type, until these become simple enough to be solved directly. The solutions to the sub-problems are then combined to give a solution to the original problem. The divide-and-conquer technique is the basis of efficient algorithms for many problems, such as sorting (e.g., quicksort, merge sort), multiplying large numbers (e.g., the Karatsuba algorithm), finding the closest pair of points, syntactic analysis (e.g., top-down parsers), SAT solving, and computing the discrete Fourier transform (FFT). Designing efficient divide-and-conquer algorithms can be difficult. As in mathematical induction, it is often necessary to generalize the problem to make it amenable to a recursive solution. The correctness of a divide-and-conquer algorithm is usually proved by mathematical induction, and its computational cost is often determined by solving recurrence relations. == Divide and conquer == The divide-and-conquer paradigm is often used to find an optimal solution of a problem. Its basic idea is to decompose a given problem into two or more similar, but simpler, subproblems, to solve them in turn, and to compose their solutions to solve the given problem. Problems of sufficient simplicity are solved directly. For example, to sort a given list of n natural numbers, split it into two lists of about n/2 numbers each, sort each of them in turn, and interleave both results appropriately to obtain the sorted version of the given list (see the picture). This approach is known as the merge sort algorithm. The name "divide and conquer" is sometimes applied to algorithms that reduce each problem to only one sub-problem, such as the binary search algorithm for finding a record in a sorted list (or its analogue in numerical computing, the bisection algorithm for root finding). These algorithms can be implemented more efficiently than general divide-and-conquer algorithms; in particular, if they use tail recursion, they can be converted into simple loops. Under this broad definition, however, every algorithm that uses recursion or loops could be regarded as a "divide-and-conquer algorithm". Therefore, some authors consider that the name "divide and conquer" should be used only when each problem may generate two or more subproblems. The name decrease and conquer has been proposed instead for the single-subproblem class. An important application of divide and conquer is in optimization, where if the search space is reduced ("pruned") by a constant factor at each step, the overall algorithm has the same asymptotic complexity as the pruning step, with the constant depending on the pruning factor (by summing the geometric series); this is known as prune and search. == Early historical examples == Early examples of these algorithms are primarily decrease and conquer – the original problem is successively broken down into single subproblems, and indeed can be solved iteratively. Binary search, a decrease-and-conquer algorithm where the subproblems are of roughly half the original size, has a long history. While a clear description of the algorithm on computers appeared in 1946 in an article by John Mauchly, the idea of using a sorted list of items to facilitate searching dates back at least as far as Babylonia in 200 BC. Another ancient decrease-and-conquer algorithm is the Euclidean algorithm to compute the greatest common divisor of two numbers by reducing the numbers to smaller and smaller equivalent subproblems, which dates to several centuries BC. An early example of a divide-and-conquer algorithm with multiple subproblems is Gauss's 1805 description of what is now called the Cooley–Tukey fast Fourier transform (FFT) algorithm, although he did not analyze its operation count quantitatively, and FFTs did not become widespread until they were rediscovered over a century later. An early two-subproblem D&C algorithm that was specifically developed for computers and properly analyzed is the merge sort algorithm, invented by John von Neumann in 1945. Another notable example is the algorithm invented by Anatolii A. Karatsuba in 1960 that could multiply two n-digit numbers in O ( n log 2 3 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{\log _{2}3})} operations (in Big O notation). This algorithm disproved Andrey Kolmogorov's 1956 conjecture that Ω ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle \Omega (n^{2})} operations would be required for that task. As another example of a divide-and-conquer algorithm that did not originally involve computers, Donald Knuth gives the method a post office typically uses to route mail: letters are sorted into separate bags for different geographical areas, each of these bags is itself sorted into batches for smaller sub-regions, and so on until they are delivered. This is related to a radix sort, described for punch-card sorting machines as early as 1929. == Advantages == === Solving difficult problems === Divide and conquer is a powerful tool for solving conceptually difficult problems: all it requires is a way of breaking the problem into sub-problems, of solving the trivial cases, and of combining sub-problems to the original problem. Similarly, decrease and conquer only requires reducing the problem to a single smaller problem, such as the classic Tower of Hanoi puzzle, which reduces moving a tower of height n {\displaystyle n} to move a tower of height n − 1 {\displaystyle n-1} . === Algorithm efficiency === The divide-and-conquer paradigm often helps in the discovery of efficient algorithms. It was the key, for example, to Karatsuba's fast multiplication method, the quicksort and mergesort algorithms, the Strassen algorithm for matrix multiplication, and fast Fourier transforms. In all these examples, the D&C approach led to an improvement in the asymptotic cost of the solution. For example, if (a) the base cases have constant-bounded size, the work of splitting the problem and combining the partial solutions is proportional to the problem's size n {\displaystyle n} , and (b) there is a bounded number p {\displaystyle p} of sub-problems of size ~ n p {\displaystyle {\frac {n}{p}}} at each stage, then the cost of the divide-and-conquer algorithm will be O ( n log p n ) {\displaystyle O(n\log _{p}n)} . For other types of divide-and-conquer approaches, running times can also be generalized. For example, when a) the work of splitting the problem and combining the partial solutions take c n {\displaystyle cn} time, where n {\displaystyle n} is the input size and c {\displaystyle c} is some constant; b) when n < 2 {\displaystyle n<2} , the algorithm takes time upper-bounded by c {\displaystyle c} , and c) there are q {\displaystyle q} subproblems where each subproblem has size ~ n 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {n}{2}}} . Then, the running times are as follows: if the number of subproblems q > 2 {\displaystyle q>2} , then the divide-and-conquer algorithm's running time is bounded by O ( n log 2 q ) {\displaystyle O(n^{\log _{2}q})} . if the number of subproblems is exactly one, then the divide-and-conquer algorithm's running time is bounded by O ( n ) {\displaystyle O(n)} . If, instead, the work of splitting the problem and combining the partial solutions take c n 2 {\displaystyle cn^{2}} time, and there are 2 subproblems where each has size n 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {n}{2}}} , then the running time of the divide-and-conquer algorithm is bounded by O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} . === Parallelism === Divide-and-conquer algorithms are naturally adapted for execution in multi-processor machines, especially shared-memory systems where the communication of data between processors does not need to be planned in advance because distinct sub-problems can be executed on different processors. === Memory access === Divide-and-conquer algorithms naturally tend to make efficient use of memory caches. The reason is that once a sub-problem is small enough, it and all its sub-problems can, in principle, be solved within the cache, without accessing the slower main memory. An algorithm designed to exploit the cache in this way is called cache-oblivious, because it does not contain the cache size as an explicit parameter. Moreover, D&C algorithms can be designed for important algorithms (e.g., sorting, FFTs, and matrix multiplication) to be optimal cache-oblivious algorithms–they use the cache in a probably optimal way, in an asymptotic sense, regardless of the cache size. In contrast, the traditional approach to exploiting the cache is blocking, as in loop nest optimization, where the problem is explicitly divided into chunks of the appropriate size—this can also use the cache optimally, but only when the algorithm is tuned for the specific cache sizes of a particular machine. The same advantage exists with regards to other hierarchical storage systems, such as NUMA or virtual memory, as well as for multipSeccomp
MarkLogic Server
Upper ontology
Knuth–Plass line-breaking algorithm
Supermind AI
Divide-and-conquer algorithm