But bubblesort? There's no invariant. Sure, I can tell you that it's this structure:
for i = ? .. ?:
for j = ? .. ?:
i1, i2 = ?, ?
if A[i1] < A[i2]:
A[i1], A[i2] = A[i2], A[i1]
But, with the lack of invariants, I don't know how to fill in the ? correctly. With trial and error, I could write a correct sort from this template. But insertion sort and selection sort also follow this template (as does any other sorting network if you try hard enough), and I can't guarantee that I'd hit bubblesort instead of those. do
sorted = true
for i = 0 .. n-1:
if A[i] > A[i+1]:
A[i], A[i+1] = A[i+1], A[i]
sorted = false
while not sorted
That's already a perfectly valid bubble sort. You can then optimize it by noticing that after nth iterations nth elements will already be sorted, and you're done.If you're trying to recall this algorithm from memory by comparing it with other sorting algorithms you've memorized, you're probably doing it wrong, because there's hardly a place for real world usage of bubble sort, so your memory of it is naturally going to fade away. The trick is - you don't even need to memorize it or recall any structure to fit it into. Just imagine an inefficiently bubbling array of numbers in your head and that's it.
For people who know about knots out there... its like asking for somebody to tie a Granny Knot instead of a square-knot. Anyone who actually practiced knot-tying will "accidentally" tie a square-knot instead (because the square-knot is stronger for the same level of effort).
Similarly, bubble sort is the "bad" way to write insertion sort. Anybody who actually practiced writing sorts will write insertion sort by accident instead.