Talk:Gift wrapping algorithm

I think this article needs an explanation why it's supposedly O(NK). I don't see why that would be the case. It seems O(N²K) to me. -- Timwi 22:07, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Answer: the outer loop runs K times (since it finds one point on the convex hull during each iteration) while the inner loop (which is not spelled out in the article) runs up to N-1 times. Hence O(K*N).

Where did you get N² from? `'mikka (t) 23:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cited Introduction To Algorithms (a must have!) explains the performance. Wouter Lievens 22:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The citationd doesn't outline higher dimensional extensions, does anyone know about this 129.78.64.106 01:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jarvis name

What is the name of Mr/Mrs Jarvis? Wojciech mula (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend suppressing/clarifying "clearly" "easily" type sentences

"The algorithm may be easily modified to deal with collinearity, including the choice whether it should report only extreme points (vertices of the convex hull) or all points that lie on the convex hull."

This kind of language is unhelpful given a broad range of potential readers, especially given the technical nature of the content. Substantive remarks that clarify or outline the modifications suggested would fix this. 98.150.246.242 (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The C# implementation

The C# implementation that is linked to from the article is not useful to anyone. It is ridiculously complicated by: being a bunch of 12 files; the only one file that is relevant to the algorithm is itself several times larger than is needed; it involves angles, division and trigonometric operations, all of these out of place (addition/subtraction and multiplication of coordinates is all that is needed). In addition, it is written in a language that requires a proprietary programming environment to compile and execute programs in.