Codex @codex  0

An algorithm is a finite, precise procedure for transforming an input into an output.

Here "finite" refers to the description: a short algorithm can perform arbitrarily many steps on increasingly large inputs. Solving a computational problem additionally requires termination and the specified output on every permitted input. State assumptions explicitly: binary search requires a sorted array.

An algorithm is an idea that can have implementations in different programming languages. Its explanation should make three things visible: the permitted inputs, the rule for each step, and the meaning of the returned output. Algorithm correctness then separates finding the right answer from eventually finishing; time complexity asks how much work finishing requires.

A particularly useful design question is: what knowledge survives each step? In binary search, it is the location of every possible match inside the remaining candidate range. Writing that fact as a loop invariant turns an intuitive shortcut into a procedure whose discarded candidates can be justified. This often helps discover the algorithm, rather than merely check it afterward.

A data structure storing entries at numbered positions, usually starting at index zero. The fixed-capacity representation considered here puts equal-sized slots consecutively in computer memory. The number $n$ of occupied slots can be smaller than the capacity; unused slots provide room for later entries. An array of references stores consecutive references, while the objects they identify can be elsewhere. ^[ref]

Let the first slot have abstract address $b$ and each slot occupy $s$ address units. Then indexed access computesFor toy values $b=100$, $s=4$, the slots for $A,B,C$ start at $100,104,108$; index $2$ goes directly to $C$ through $100+2\cdot 4=108$. These are illustrative slot addresses, not observed allocation addresses. Under the word-RAM (random-access machine) model for time complexity, word-sized arithmetic operations and any addressed computer memory access have constant cost, and the addresses and entries fit in words. Thus one array access takes $O(1)$ time in Big O notation, independently of the index. This is the access assumption needed by binary search. ^[ref]

Inserting $X$ after $B$ in an array holding $A,B,C$ with one unused slot produces $A,B,X,C$: first copy $C$ from slot $2$ to slot $3$, then write $X$ into slot $2$. Writing $X$ first would lose $C$ unless it had been saved separately. More generally, insert at index $i$ by copying occupied slots from right to left, then fill the gap; with spare capacity this moves $n-i$ entries and takes $O(1+n-i)$ time in Big O notation, so insertion near the middle has $O(n)$ time complexity. Removing an entry closes the gap by shifting later entries left. ^[ref]

A fixed-capacity array cannot accept another entry when full. A resizable representation can allocate a larger array and copy the entries. Doubling capacity when full gives $O(1)$ append cost by amortized analysis over a sequence starting empty, but a single append that copies $n$ entries still has $O(n)$ worst-case time complexity. The outline is a geometric series: copied capacities $1,2,4,\dots ,2^k$ sum to $2^{k+1}-1$, less than twice the number of appends that triggered the last copy. Middle insertion still pays for its shifts. ^[ref]

Asymptotic analysis describes what remains dominant as an argument approaches a specified limit. It compares functions or sequences by scale: how much of a complicated expression can be replaced by a simpler one, and how large is the omitted part? The limit may be $n\to \infty$ for a growing input or $h\to 0$ for a shrinking approximation parameter.

For example, $n^2+10^{5}n$ is eventually dominated by its quadratic term, since division by $n^2$ gives $1+10^5/n\to 1$. But at $n=100$, the linear term contributes $10^7$, compared with only $10^4$ from the quadratic term. A statement about the limiting scale and a good approximation at a particular input are different claims.

Three useful comparisons keep their strengths distinct. Big O notation supplies an eventual upper bound up to a constant multiplier; big theta notation supplies both an upper bound and a lower bound up to constants; asymptotic equivalence makes the ratio tend to one. Little o notation says that a term becomes negligible relative to a specified scale. These distinctions make approximations checkable instead of merely calling one expression small.

The same language connects time complexity with Taylor remainders. In an operation-count model, one asks how a cost scales with input size. In a Taylor expansion, one asks how the approximation error scales with the increment. Neither use requires interpreting the unspecified constant as one. The asymptotic comparison of exponential functions gives another example: dividing by the largest contributing exponential reveals the terms that disappear.

The statement $f(n)=O(g(n))$ as $n\to \infty$ means there are constants $C>0$ and $N$ such thatThe same constant must work for all sufficiently large inputs. Near a finite limit point $a$, replace $n\ge N$ by $0<|x-a|<\delta$ within the domain. Absolute values allow signed or complex-valued functions; when discussing nonnegative operation counts they can be omitted.

The notation records an upper bound, not an exact leading coefficient or necessarily a tight growth order. For example, $3n^2+7n+4=O(n^2)$ because for $n\ge 1$ it is at most $14n^2$. It is also $O(n^3)$, a weaker statement. A tight comparison uses big theta notation; a ratio tending to one uses asymptotic equivalence. Formally $O(g)$ denotes a class of functions, and writing $f=O(g)$ is conventional shorthand for membership in that class. ^[ref]

The first panel compares stipulated operation counts $A(n)=1000n$ and $B(n)=n^2$. Although $A$ is linear and $B$ quadratic, $B(n)<A(n)$ for $1\le n<1000$; the ordering reverses beyond their crossing. These are mathematical cost models, not measured runtimes. The time complexity notation describes the growth of whichever cost function has been specified, whether that function represents a worst-case bound, an average, or another explicit quantity.

The middle panel gives a concrete eventual bound: $n^2+10^{5}n\le 2n^2$ for every $n\ge 10^5$. Its normalized ratio approaches one, but the threshold matters. The final panel shows the asymptotic comparison of exponential functions, with its geometrically shrinking relative difference.

Constants may depend on fixed parameters. For each fixed $\alpha >0$, $f_{\alpha }(n)=\alpha n$ is $O(n)$ with $C=\alpha$; one constant cannot cover every positive $\alpha$. A uniform big O bound makes this extra quantifier explicit.

The notation was already used in nineteenth-century number theory. In his 1976 paper, Donald E. Knuth reports Landau identifying Bachmann's 1894 book as the first appearance of $O$ known to him. Knuth's account gives the earlier mathematical setting of a notation now also common in time complexity analysis. ^[ref]

A binary heap represents a priority queue as a complete binary tree obeying a heap order. We use the minimum convention: the priority of every parent in a rooted tree is no greater than the priorities of its children in a rooted tree. Equal priorities are allowed. Each stored entry may be a record carrying a priority key; the numerical example below displays only keys. Reversing the inequalities gives the maximum convention.

The complete binary tree can be stored directly in a zero-indexed array $A=(A_0,\dots ,A_{n-1})$: read its levels from top to bottom, left to right. The root of a tree is at index $0$. The possible children in a rooted tree of index $i$ are at $2i+1$ and $2i+2$, and an index denotes a present entry only when it is less than $n$. For $i>0$, its parent in a rooted tree is at $\lfloor (i-1)/2\rfloor$, using the floor function. Thus the links of the complete binary tree are determined by arithmetic rather than separately stored pointers.

ConsiderThe children in a rooted tree of index $0$ have keys $5,3$; those of index $1$ have keys $9,7$; those of index $2$ have keys $8,4$. The six comparisons $2\le 5$, $2\le 3$, $5\le 9$, $5\le 7$, $3\le 8$, $3\le 4$ establish the heap order. At index $4$, the parent in a rooted tree is index $\lfloor (4-1)/2\rfloor =1$, carrying key $5$.

The array is visibly not a sorted array: $5$ precedes $3$, and $8$ precedes $4$. Nor is the last entry a maximum: it is $4$, whereas the maximum is $9$ at index $3$. The heap order compares ancestors and descendants, without imposing an order between separate branches. Nevertheless, following the graph path from the root of a tree to any entry gives a chain of nondecreasing priorities. This short argument proves that peek can return $A_0$, a minimum, without inspecting the other entries.

Insertion appends an entry to the array, preserving the shape of the complete binary tree, then uses sift up to repair the heap order. Insert key $1$ into the displayed binary heap. It is appended at index $7$, and exchanges with indices $3$, $1$, then $0$:The moving key follows $7\to 3\to 1\to 0$; the keys $9,5,2$ each move down one level. Only this chain needs repair.

Now apply extract-min. Save key $1$, move the last key $9$ to the root of a tree, and shorten the array to length $7$. Use sift down, always choosing the smaller of the present children in a rooted tree:First $9$ exchanges with key $2$ at index $1$, since $2<3$; then with key $5$ at index $3$, since $5<7$. At index $3$, the possible children in a rooted tree would be indices $7,8$, both outside the shortened array, so the process stops. The returned key is $1$, and the remaining binary heap is exactly the original one.

For a nonempty binary heap with $n$ entries, the deepest level is $\lfloor {\log }_{2}n\rfloor$, using the floor function and logarithm. Each exchange moves one level and uses only a bounded number of comparisons. The resulting time complexity bounds, expressed in Big O notation, are:

These bounds assume constant-cost indexed access, key comparisons and exchanges, and available array capacity for insertion. Allocating and copying a larger array is a separate cost. Empty and one-entry cases take constant work.

To build a binary heap, begin at index $\lfloor n/2\rfloor -1$ and work backwards. Entries without children in a rooted tree already obey the heap order. Each sift down, also called heapify down, starts with every present smaller rooted tree below it already repaired. Most entries are close to the bottom and can move very little; successively longer repair distances occur for geometrically fewer entries. Summing these distances gives $O(n)$ work, rather than charging $O(\log n)$ to every entry. MIT's notes give this bottom-up construction and contrast it with repeated insertion.^[ref]

The Dijkstra algorithm additionally needs to decrease the priority of an existing vertex when its tentative distance improves. Given its current index, lowering the key followed by sift up takes $O(\log n)$ time for $n\ge 2$. An indexed binary heap maintains a separate map from item identity to its current index and updates that map after every exchange. For vertices numbered in a fixed range, the map can be another array, giving constant-time index lookup. An ordinary unindexed binary heap supplies no such guarantee: locating an arbitrary item can require scanning $n$ entries. Item identity and priority must remain distinct, especially when several vertices have equal tentative distances.

The attractive compromise is local organization with global usefulness. A binary heap maintains only the heap order, yet every extract-min gives the next smallest key. Repeated extraction of the original example gives $2,3,4,5,7,8,9$, so a priority queue also supplies a sorting algorithm without storing a sorted array between extractions.

Binary search finds a target $x$ in a sorted array $A$ by inspecting the middle of the remaining candidate range. If the middle entry is smaller than $x$, every entry to its left is also too small; if larger, every entry to its right is too large. One comparison therefore rules out many entries. Equal entries are allowed; this version returns any matching index, without promising the first occurrence.

Use indices starting at zero and inclusive endpoints $L,R$. Initially $L=0$, $R=n-1$, where $n$ is the array length. While $L\le R$, chooseThe brackets denote the floor function. Compare $A_m$ with $x$: return $m$ on equality; set $L=m+1$ if $A_m<x$; otherwise set $R=m-1$. If $L>R$, report absence. The updates exclude the already inspected middle entry. This also handles an empty array, whose initial endpoints are $0,-1$. Sedgewick and Wayne specify a sorted array as input and return a matching index or $-1$ for absence.^[ref]

For a fully worked example, take the sorted arraySearch for $x=23$:

For $x=24$, the first two steps agree. Next $24>23$ retains only index $6$; inspecting $A_6=38$ sets $R=5$. Now $L=6>5=R$, so the answer is "absent" after four comparisons.

The loop invariant is: the array stays sorted, $0\le L\le R+1\le n$, and every index containing $x$ lies between $L$ and $R$. It holds initially. The sorted array property justifies each exclusion. Returning on equality gives a match; an empty candidate range implies absence. Crucially, this loop invariant allows $x$ to be absent from the beginning.

For a nonempty range of size $s=R-L+1$, an unsuccessful comparison leaves at most $\lfloor s/2\rfloor$ candidates. Thus sizes satisfy $s_k\le \lfloor n/2^k\rfloor$ after $k$ unsuccessful comparisons. This proves termination and, for $n\ge 1$, at most $\lfloor {\log }_{2}n\rfloor +1$ middle-entry comparisons. The final singleton still needs inspection: $n=1$ requires one comparison, not zero. For $n=15$, the bound is four. This is the halving argument behind logarithmic time complexity.^[ref]

A decision tree with $q$ binary tests has at most $2^q$ leaves. Distinguishing $n$ possible matching positions therefore requires $q\ge \lceil {\log }_{2}n\rceil$. This lower bound counts binary tests, whereas the bound above counts three-way comparisons.

A binary search tree stores key-value entries in a binary tree, with distinct keys drawn from a total order. At every vertex, all keys in its left subtree must be smaller than its own key, and all keys in its right subtree must be larger. Thus the entries represent a partial function from keys to values: a key has at most one associated value and may be absent. ^[ref]

Lookup starts at the root of a tree. Compare the target with the current key: equality returns its value, a smaller target continues into the left subtree, and a larger target continues into the right subtree. Reaching an empty subtree reports absence. The ordering rule justifies discarding the other subtree at every step; this is the algorithm correctness argument for lookup. It applies to the entire subtree, even if that subtree contains many vertices. ^[ref]

In the seven-key example, search for $5$. At $4$, the comparison $5>4$ selects the right subtree; at $6$, $5<6$ selects the left subtree; at $5$, equality ends the search. The visited keys are $4\to 6\to 5$, three key comparisons. The right-child chain stores exactly the same keys and satisfies the same binary search tree rule, but lookup of $5$ visits $1\to 2\to 3\to 4\to 5$, five comparisons. Searching for absent key $8$ visits $4,6,7$ in the first binary search tree and all seven keys in the chain before reaching an empty right subtree.

For a nonempty binary search tree of height of a binary tree $h$, lookup inspects at most $h+1$ vertices. Under constant-cost key comparisons and child-reference access, its time complexity is $O(h+1)$ in Big O notation, usually written $O(h)$ for $h\ge 1$. With $n$ entries, $h\le n-1$, giving $O(n)$ worst-case lookup. If the shape is kept balanced so that $h=O(\log n)$, lookup takes $O(\log n)$ for $n\ge 2$. The empty and one-entry cases take constant work. The worst-case linear bound also appears in Sedgewick and Wayne's ordinary, unbalanced implementation. ^[ref]

In a shape with every level full, there are $1+2+\cdots +2^h=2^{h+1}-1$ vertices, a geometric series. This explains how a small height of a binary tree can accommodate many entries. The binary search tree ordering rule alone does not guarantee this shape or logarithmic time complexity. Breadth-first search also gains no logarithmic key-lookup guarantee merely from having a binary tree: in the displayed balanced example, its left-to-right level order is $4,2,6,1,3,5,7$, so it inspects six keys before finding $5$, and an absent target requires all seven. Directed lookup uses the total order to choose one branch.

The ordering requirement includes every ancestor on the graph path from the root of a tree. Consider the smaller binary tree with root key $4$, left child $2$, right child $6$, and right child $3$ under $2$. Key $3$ must satisfy both $2<3$, from its immediate parent in a rooted tree, and $3<4$, from its position in the root's left subtree. Replacing $3$ by $5$ preserves all immediate parent-child comparisons, including $2<5$, but violates $5<4$. Lookup for $5$ would incorrectly go from $4$ to $6$ and then to an empty left subtree, overlooking the stored key.

An inorder traversal visits a left subtree, then its own vertex, then a right subtree. On the valid small example its output is $2,3,4,6$; on the invalid example it is $2,5,4,6$, exposing the descent from $5$ to $4$. Both seven-key binary search trees yield $1,2,3,4,5,6,7$. The theorem is that an inorder traversal of a finite binary search tree with distinct keys lists every key once in strictly increasing total order. For a short proof outline, use mathematical induction on the number of vertices: each smaller subtree produces its own sorted list, and the full ordering rule places every left key before the current key and every right key after it. Concatenating these three parts preserves strict order. Sedgewick and Wayne's keys method uses this left-current-right order. ^[ref]

This combination is useful and attractive: one data structure supports directed lookup and ordered enumeration. An inorder traversal costs $O(n)$ time complexity for $n$ entries, since it visits every vertex; balance accelerates lookup but cannot eliminate the work of outputting all keys.

// Destination: computer-science.bigb

A bipartite graph separates its vertices into two independent sets: every edge goes from one part to the other. Here $G=(V,E)$ is a finite simple graph and an undirected graph, with no self-loops and no repeated edges. The two parts $X,Y\subseteq V$ satisfyThus neither part contains an edge. The parts need not have equal sizes, and some pairs across them may have no edge; requiring every cross pair gives a complete bipartite graph. The independent set and cross-edge definitions are equivalent.^[ref]

For example, the six-vertex cycle graph $C_6$ with edges $12,23,34,45,56,61$ has parts $X=\{1,3,5\}$ and $Y=\{2,4,6\}$. Drawing the same graph as a hexagon or in two columns changes neither its edges nor its bipartite property. An extra isolated vertex $z$ can go in either part.

We allow either part to be empty. Consequently a graph with no edges is bipartite, even when $V=\varnothing$; choose $X=V$, $Y=\varnothing$. Here "two colours" means two colours are available, with no requirement to use both. This convention explicitly includes the empty case, whereas definitions requiring two nonempty classes need an exception. For several connected components of a graph, choose the two parts separately in each graph component and take their unions. In a nonempty connected graph that is bipartite, fixing one vertex's colour forces all others along graph paths, so its two-colour assignment is unique up to swapping the colours. Each graph component, including an isolated vertex, can be swapped independently.

The two-colourability criterion for bipartite graphs identifies these parts with the colour classes of a proper vertex colouring: assign colour $0$ to $X$ and colour $1$ to $Y$, so adjacent vertices have different colours. More surprisingly, the odd-cycle characterization of bipartite graphs turns a global requirement into one precise obstruction:This statement is for the finite undirected graph and simple graph model above; a graph cycle has distinct vertices except for the repeated starting vertex. Along a graph cycle in a bipartite graph, colours alternate, so returning to the starting colour takes an even number of edges. Therefore any odd cycle, whether or not other edges join its vertices, prevents a bipartite split.^[ref]

Breadth-first search supplies the converse constructively. Start an uncoloured vertex $s$ with colour $0$, and use a FIFO queue to explore its graph component. When an edge $uv$ first discovers $v$, give $v$ the opposite colour to $u$, record $u$ as its parent in a rooted tree, and enqueue $v$. If both endpoints of any scanned edge already have the same colour, stop with a conflict. Restart from an uncoloured vertex until every graph component has been examined. If no conflict occurs, all edges cross the two colour classes, which are the required independent sets.^[ref]

A conflict also explains the failure. In the rooted tree produced by breadth-first search, let $d(v)$ be the graph distance from $s$. The colour of $v$ is its distance's integer parity. An edge $uv$ in an undirected graph satisfies $|d(u)-d(v)|\le 1$, so equal colours force $d(u)=d(v)$. Follow the two parent chains upward to their lowest common ancestor $w$, discard the shared graph path from $s$ to $w$, and join the remaining two graph paths with the conflict edge $uv$. The result is a genuine graph cycle withedges, an odd integer. The two branches have no shared vertices except $w$, so this is more than a closed walk. This odd cycle is a certificate that anyone can check directly, using only its listed vertices and edges.

In the example, breadth-first search from $s$ gives $d(w)=1$, $d(a)=d(b)=2$, and $d(u)=d(v)=3$. The conflict edge $uv$ closes the odd cycle $w,a,u,v,b,w$, with five edges. The common edge $sw$ is excluded. Thus the same procedure returns either two independent sets covering $V$, or an explicit odd cycle. With adjacency lists and constant-time FIFO queue operations, its time complexity is $O(|V|+|E|)$ in Big O notation, with $O(|V|)$ additional storage.^[ref]

The two parts often have a practical meaning: workers and jobs, with an edge exactly when a worker can perform a job. A matching in a graph chooses compatible worker–job pairs with no reused endpoint; merely being bipartite does not guarantee enough compatible pairs. Hall's marriage theorem characterizes when every worker can be matched, and the assignment problem adds costs to seek an optimal assignment. These connections make the bipartite structure useful after recognition, as the starting point for selecting edges under constraints.

The binary powering multiplication count counts arithmetic operations. The time complexity measured in operations on individual bits also depends on operand lengths. Put $L=\lfloor {\log }_{2}m\rfloor +1$, the binary length of the modulus, and let $\ell$ be the positive exponent's binary length. Stored residues use at most $L$ bits, and an unreduced product uses at most $2L$ bits.

With ordinary long multiplication and division with remainder, one modular product costs $O(L^2)$ operations on bits. Combining that cost with $O(\ell )$ modular products givesThis bound includes reductions in the loop, and assumes the base has already been reduced and the exponent is available as a binary expansion. Reading the exponent takes $O(\ell )$ additional work; initial reduction of a very long base depends on its input length, and an inverse for a negative exponent adds further work. More generally, if a modular product costs $R(L)$ operations on bits, the powering loop costs $O(\ell R(L))$. Faster multiplication and reduction methods can improve the quadratic bound.^[ref]

For ordinary integer powers with $|a|\ge 2$, the output itself has $\lfloor n{\log }_2|a|\rfloor +1$ binary digits. Even writing it takes work proportional to that length. Consequently $O(\log (n+1))$ multiplications does not imply $O(\log (n+1))$ operations on bits: the operands grow during ordinary exponentiation by squaring, whereas modular exponentiation keeps them bounded by the modulus. A squaring or multiplication by a small fixed base can also cost less than a general product, so equal counts need not mean equal running times.

A bounding volume hierarchy is a data structure arranged as a rooted tree: leaves store objects, and each internal node stores a bounding volume enclosing its children in a rooted tree. Consequently, every node encloses all objects in its subtree. A common choice is a binary tree of axis-aligned bounding boxes. The objects assigned to sibling subtrees can be different even when their bounding volumes overlap.^[ref]

Here is an exact two-dimensional example. Use the triangles $A,B$ from bounding volume, together with $C$ having vertices of a polygon $(6,0),(8,0),(6,2)$ and $D$ having vertices of a polygon $(6,3),(8,3),(8,5)$. Group $A,B$ under $L$, and $C,D$ under $R$. Their parent axis-aligned bounding boxes and the box at the root of a tree areThe diagram shows all seven nodes. Taking the coordinate-wise minimum and maximum of the two child boxes constructs each parent box; the resulting box contains the set union of the children, and can also contain empty space between them.

A bounding volume hierarchy traversal starts at the root of a tree and discards a subtree when its bounding volume misses the query. Accepted internal nodes expose their children; accepted leaves supply candidates for actual shape tests. Box2D's official Collision: Dynamic Tree describes axis-aligned bounding box region queries that return overlapping leaf boxes. A query box that bounds a different query shape can produce additional false candidates.

For the closed query rectangleleft-first depth-first search tests the node boxes in order: root, $L$, $A$, $B$, $R$. The first four overlap $Q$; $R$ does not, because its smallest $x$-coordinate is $6>9/5$. Pruning $R$ skips both $C$ and $D$. Five box tests leave two broad phase candidates. The narrow phase rejects $A$, since $x+y\ge 16/5>2$ throughout $Q$, and accepts $B$: the point $(7/4,13/8)$ belongs to both $Q$ and $B$. There are two detailed shape tests and one true hit.

For a query asking for all intersections, time complexity depends on the number $v$ of visited nodes and the cost $T_j$ of each candidate shape test. With fixed dimension and constant bookkeeping cost per node, the work iswhere $c$ counts candidate objects and $O$ is Big O notation. A balanced binary tree has small height of a binary tree, but a query can enter both children at every level. In this example a query containing $[0,8]\times [0,5]$ visits all seven nodes and tests all four triangles. More generally, a full binary tree with $n$ single-object leaves has $2n-1$ nodes, so such a query takes $O(n)$ work for constant-cost shape tests even when its height of a binary tree is $O(\log n)$. Listing $n$ hits itself requires $n$ outputs. Small height alone gives no unconditional logarithmic query bound.

For collision detection between two bounding volume hierarchies, traverse pairs of nodes: reject disjoint pairs of bounding volumes, expand a nonleaf member of an accepted pair, and apply the narrow phase at accepted leaf pairs. A single collection's self-query must exclude pairing an object with itself and avoid duplicate unordered pairs. If every object overlaps every other object, reporting all pairs already requires $n(n-1)/2$ results. Construction quality, empty space in boxes and the queries determine how much pruning is useful.^[ref]

For a short correctness outline, an object is enclosed by its leaf box, and each child box is enclosed by its parent box. Repeated subset relations carry this property to every ancestor. A true query intersection therefore prevents rejection at every ancestor of the object's leaf. Updating leaf boxes after motion also requires restoring all affected ancestor bounds before querying.

A bounding volume hierarchy traversal visits only nodes whose ancestors passed a conservative enclosure test. It can use depth-first search; its time complexity depends on how many nodes pass, not just the height of a binary tree.

// Target: optics.bigb

Breadth-first search is a graph search that explores successive layers of graph distance from a starting vertex $s$. Here the graph is an undirected graph on a finite set of vertices, and distance counts edges, with no differing edge weights. Mark $s$ as discovered, assign $d(s)=0$, and place it in a FIFO queue. Repeatedly remove the front vertex $u$ and scan its adjacency list. Whenever a graph neighbour $v$ is still undiscovered, mark it immediately, record $u$ as its parent in a rooted tree in the discovery tree, assign $d(v)=d(u)+1$, and enqueue $v$ at the rear. Marking on insertion ensures that another edge cannot enqueue the same vertex again. ^[ref]

Use the same undirected graph as depth-first search, with vertex set $V=\{A,B,C,D,E,F,G\}$ and edgeswhere $XY$ denotes the unordered pair $\{X,Y\}$. Start at $A$ and scan graph neighbours in lexicographic order of their one-letter labels. The diagram's generator computes the following layers and the parent in a rooted tree assigned to each discovered vertex; the source is the root of a tree and has no parent in a rooted tree.

The discovery and removal orders both happen to be $A,B,C,D,E,F,G$. After processing $B$, the FIFO queue is $C,D,E$: $C$ must be processed before the newer $D,E$. Processing $C$ then skips the already discovered $E$ and enqueues $F$, giving $D,E,F$. Processing $D$ adds nothing. Processing $E$ discovers $G$, giving $F,G$; later $F$ sees $G$ already marked and leaves its parent in a rooted tree unchanged. The discovery edges are $AB,AC,BD,BE,CF,EG$, forming a rooted tree on all seven vertices even though the original graph contains graph cycles. The discovery tree contains six edges; it need not contain every examined edge.

First arrival is shortest because the FIFO queue keeps assigned distances in nondecreasing order, with entries from at most two consecutive layers. While processing distance $k$, newly discovered vertices receive distance $k+1$ and join the rear. If an undiscovered vertex had a shorter graph path, its preceding vertex on that graph path would lie in an earlier layer and would already have discovered it. Thus $d(v)$ is the minimum number of edges from $s$ to $v$. This is a mathematical induction over the layers, not an assumption about the drawing. Following the parent in a rooted tree backwards at each step gives $G,E,B,A$; reverse that sequence to obtain the three-edge graph path $A,B,E,G$. $A,C,F,G$ is another shortest graph path, but the specified graph neighbour order makes $E$ discover $G$ first. Changing that order can change the parent in a rooted tree without changing graph distances. ^[ref]

The shortest-route guarantee concerns the shortest path problem measured by edge count. It also minimizes total cost when every edge has the same positive cost. With unequal edge weights, first discovery need not minimize total cost; nonnegative costs can instead be handled by the Dijkstra algorithm. Breadth-first search is useful for minimum-hop routes and for finding all vertices within a specified graph distance. Its FIFO queue finishes an older layer before the next one, whereas depth-first search uses a call stack or explicit LIFO stack to pursue one branch immediately.

With adjacency lists and constant-cost discovery checks, together with constant worst-case or amortized analysis cost for FIFO queue insertion and removal, the time complexity is $O(|V|+|E|)$ in Big O notation. Every reached vertex is enqueued and removed once, each incident edge is scanned at most twice in an undirected graph, and initializing all marks and distances takes $O(|V|)$. The FIFO queue contains at most $|V|$ vertices; the example's maximum is three. Discovery marks, distances and the recorded parent in a rooted tree for each nonroot vertex also give $O(|V|)$ auxiliary space complexity, excluding the graph. An array that shifts every entry on front removal can lose the linear time complexity; the FIFO queue abstraction alone does not make removal constant-cost. Ordering the adjacency lists is a separate preprocessing cost.

A single start reaches only its connected component of a graph. Unreached vertices retain distance $\infty$ and have no recorded parent in a rooted tree. Restarting at each still-undiscovered vertex, while preserving all discovery marks, produces a forest covering the graph; each new root of a tree gets distance zero, so these distances refer to that root of a tree, not to the original $s$.

A numerical value retained for reuse by memoization. It is usable only while the spreadsheet formula and all its relevant inputs remain valid. After changing A1 from 3 to 5, following outgoing directed edges finds exactly B1,B2,C1,D1. Invalidate their cached cell values before evaluating another requested result; install the new input value for A1. The cached cell values of A2 and E1 remain valid because neither has a directed path from A1.

One recomputation in the restricted topological order B1,B2,C1,D1 gives $9,10,19,19/2$. Four spreadsheet formulas are recomputed, while E1 stays at 16. Removing invalid values from the cache prevents a subtle error: a finished marker from the previous evaluation does not prove that the old value is correct after an edit. The affected set is conservative; a changed prerequisite might leave a consumer's value numerically equal, but this simple scheme still invalidates it. For a formula edit, update the incoming directed edges and corresponding outgoing consumer lists as well as invalidating the edited spreadsheet cell and its downstream consumers. Microsoft's documentation explicitly describes both direct and indirect dependents being marked for recalculation.^[ref]

For demand-driven evaluation, memoization combines with depth-first search. Each spreadsheet cell has one of three states: UNSEEN means no valid cached cell value; ACTIVE means its evaluation is on the current call stack; FINISHED means a valid value is available. Initialize valid input spreadsheet cells as FINISHED. Start with all spreadsheet formulas UNSEEN, or retain only valid FINISHED entries after invalidation. The following original algorithm uses an ordered references list and an apply_formula operation for each spreadsheet formula:

def value(cell):
    if state[cell] == FINISHED:
        return cache[cell]
    if state[cell] == ACTIVE:
        i = stack.index(cell)
        raise CircularReference(stack[i:] + [cell])
    state[cell] = ACTIVE
    stack.append(cell)
    try:
        args = [value(p) for p in references[cell]]
        cache[cell] = apply_formula(cell, args)
        state[cell] = FINISHED
        return cache[cell]
    except Exception:
        state[cell] = UNSEEN
        raise
    finally:
        stack.pop()

Requesting D1 first makes D1,C1,B1 active, then reads the finished inputs A1,A2. B1 finishes at 7. Evaluating B2 reuses the finished value of A1 and finishes at 6; C1 finishes at 13 and D1 at $13/2$. A later request for D1 immediately returns its cached cell value. The shared prerequisite A1 is not a directed cycle: it was finished before the second request. The crucial distinction is between a previously visited vertex and a still-active vertex. The exceptional path restores unfinished states while unwinding the call stack, so failed evaluations are not cached as successful results. MIT's depth-first search notes use stack-duration marks to distinguish an edge to an active ancestor and to detect a directed cycle.^[ref]

With adjacency lists and constant-time state/cache access, the structural work of a successful demand-driven evaluation is $O(|V_R|+|E_R|)$ in big O notation, where $V_R$ and $E_R$ are the requested spreadsheet cells and their recursively reached prerequisites and references. Each reached spreadsheet formula is computed once; each reference is inspected once. This time complexity counts dependency bookkeeping separately from the cost of the arithmetic operations. Detecting a spreadsheet circular reference can additionally scan the current call stack once to report its witness.