Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!psuvax1!ian From: ian@psuvax1.UUCP (Ian Parberry) Newsgroups: net.research,net.math Subject: optimal sorting networks Message-ID: <1667@psuvax1.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 16:41:17 EDT Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1667 Posted: Wed Jul 3 16:41:17 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 06:32:41 EDT Distribution: net Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ. Lines: 13 Xref: watmath net.research:189 net.math:2123 In Knuth "The Art of Computer Programming", Volume 3, Section 5.3.4, there is a list of the best known upper and lower-bounds (at the time of publication) on the size and depth of sorting networks with up to 16 inputs. The optimal size and optimal depth are known for n<=8. Has any more progress been made for n>8 in the last 12 years? I am particularly interested in n=9,10,...16, but any "small" n will do. P.S. Yes, I do know about the Ajtai, Komlos and Szemeredi result, and the subsequent improvements by Mike Paterson. Even Batcher's sorting networks beats the latter for "small" n (the last figure I heard bandied about was 2 to the power 1300).