If there was some magical infinitely fast infinite memory computer then a brute force algorithm would have the same running time as an elegant algorithm, so in that case it wouldn't make any difference. However, there is no such thing as an infinitely fast computer or free memory, in the real world you have to make trade-offs and know how those affect your memory-usage and running-time.
Also, unless you know algorithms you are going to have a VERY hard time trying to code any sort of advanced functionality, especially things like encryption which depend on strong randomness, and where a small mistake anywhere in your algorithm can mean that your encryption can be easily compromised by someone who knows what they are doing.
Yes. There are problems for which an algorithm cannot exist. See "The Halting Problem" and other classes of unsolvable problems. Attempting to solve these problems algorithmically is logically impossible, even given infinite resources.
If the question is simply comparing sorting algorithms for in-memory lists -- no, there is not a reason. However, algorithms are applied to other things that you have not specified as infinite fast and plentiful, such as network bandwidth, hard disk capacity/rotational speed, etc.
Suppose it is.
The full Question...Suppose 3 algorithms are used to perform the same task for a certain number of cycles. Algorithm A completes 3 cycles in one minute. Each of Algorithm B and Algorithm C respectively completes 4 and 5 cycles per minute. What is the shortest time required for each Algorithm to complete the same number of cycles?
There are infinitely many pairs. Suppose A is any non-zero number. Let B = A*92 Then B/A = A*92/A = 92 Since A can be any number then there are infinitely many solutions.
From Wikipedia ("Prime triplet"): "Similarly to the twin prime conjecture, it is conjectured that there are infinitely many prime triplets." So, it seems that nobody really knows for sure. "It is conjectured" means that it seems reasonable to suppose that there are infinitely many, but that it hasn't been proven yet.
Numbers are infinitely dense so that there are infinitely many numbers between any two.If you claim that 0.002 is next, then there are infinitely many between 0.001 and 0.002 so one of them should be next, not 0.002: suppose that number is x. But then there are infinitely many numbers between 0.001 and x so one of those should be next. That argument can go on without end.
youblogin like you are suppose to
Write computer-programs, I suppose.
There are infinitely many rational numbers between 2 and 27.
There are infinitely many pairs. Suppose x is any non-zero number. Let y = 32/x. Then x*y = x*(32/x) = 32 Then there are infinitely many sets of 3 numbers, of 4 numbers, etc.
Resintall it and THEN uninstall it.
I suppose if you go to Microsoft Word and go to symbols you could find it.
Hmaybe it suppose to recommend the job