Visit the preview URL for this PR (for commit 6d88735):

https://cp-algorithms--preview-984-3wg8ogmf.web.app

(expires 2023-01-02T16:23:42.261625028Z)

Thanks! Generally, I'm not a fan of just removing information. There were such articles at least, as I understand. I would instead try to amend the wording to "there were articles" instead of "there are articles" and then tell what happened after that, and why their point no longer stands. As OP of #979 says, the first article was retracted, and the second one is not peer-reviewed, right?

Even though sometimes it's important to mention a history of wrong or negative results, I don't think it's a good fit for an educational resource. Not everyone has sufficient exposure to scientific method to properly label this statement as mostly irrelevant to anything done with DSU in practice. This statement is highly misleading, and should be dropped.

Even though sometimes it's important to mention a history of wrong or negative results, I don't think it's a good fit for an educational resource. Not everyone has sufficient exposure to scientific method to properly label this statement as mostly irrelevant to anything done with DSU in practice. This statement is highly misleading, and should be dropped.

I would be inclined to keep the negative results if they are mentioned in other surveys or textbooks on the problem. I can't adequately judge whether either of these papers had any impact at all.

Accidentally closed the PR before when cleaning up my repos

Visit the preview URL for this PR (for commit 6d88735):

https://cp-algorithms--preview-984-jktwvpg6.web.app

(expires 2023-01-11T04:31:40.117995038Z)

The accepted time complexity seems to be $O(\alpha(n))$.
So I also believe, that deleting the sentence about possible improvements is the best.

The first paper was clearly wrong (as it was deleted by the author).
And I also believe that the second paper (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235708752_A_simpler_proof_of_the_average_case_complexity_of_union-find_with_path_compression) is wrong. I seems like they forgot that the height of tree's will grow again after union operations (although I haven't studied the problem and the paper in detail).