I learned about this from Matt Parker’s Stand-Up Maths channel. It was originally conceived as a counterexample, a sorting algorithm that was obviously broken, but it does actually sort correctly. The algorithm:
for i = 1 to n do
for j = 1 to n do
if A[i] < A[j] then
swap A[i] and A[j]
It has a few quirks (like j accessing elements outside of i’s range, and the A[i] < A[j] comparator being backward) that should break it, but they all work together to make the algorithm correctly (if inefficiently) sort the input.
paper describing the algorithm in more detail.
not sure why you see different behaviour based on parity, but it does sort in descending order. that is why the inequality operator in
if A[i] < A[j] then swapis reversed.