Paper detail

Twenty-Five Comparators is Optimal when Sorting Nine Inputs (and Twenty-Nine for Ten)

This paper describes a computer-assisted non-existence proof of nine-input sorting networks consisting of 24 comparators, hence showing that the 25-comparator sorting network found by Floyd in 1964 is optimal. As a corollary, we obtain that the 29-comparator network found by Waksman in 1969 is optimal when sorting ten inputs. This closes the two smallest open instances of the optimal size sorting network problem, which have been open since the results of Floyd and Knuth from 1966 proving optimality for sorting networks of up to eight inputs. The proof involves a combination of two methodologies: one based on exploiting the abundance of symmetries in sorting networks, and the other, based on an encoding of the problem to that of satisfiability of propositional logic. We illustrate that, while each of these can single handed solve smaller instances of the problem, it is their combination which leads to an efficient solution for nine inputs.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.