Paper detail

On the Optimality of Tape Merge of Two Lists with Similar Size

The problem of merging sorted lists in the least number of pairwise comparisons has been solved completely only for a few special cases. Graham and Karp \cite{taocp} independently discovered that the tape merge algorithm is optimal in the worst case when the two lists have the same size. In the seminal papers, Stockmeyer and Yao\cite{yao}, Murphy and Paull\cite{3k3}, and Christen\cite{christen1978optimality} independently showed when the lists to be merged are of size $m$ and $n$ satisfying $m\leq n\leq\lfloor\frac{3}{2}m\rfloor+1$, the tape merge algorithm is optimal in the worst case. This paper extends this result by showing that the tape merge algorithm is optimal in the worst case whenever the size of one list is no larger than 1.52 times the size of the other. The main tool we used to prove lower bounds is Knuth's adversary methods \cite{taocp}. In addition, we show that the lower bound cannot be improved to 1.8 via Knuth's adversary methods. We also develop a new inequality about Knuth's adversary methods, which might be interesting in its own right. Moreover, we design a simple procedure to achieve constant improvement of the upper bounds for $2m-2\leq n\leq 3m $.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.