Donald Knuth On NPR

StratoFlyer writes "This morning, NPR is running an interview with Donald Knuth titled Donald Knuth, Founding Artist of Computer Science. The persistence of this man is extraordinary, if not heroic. RealPlayer and MediaPlayer feeds will be available at 10am EST, according to the NPR.org site." Indeed they are.

Comments

Favorite part

[daves]

He used graph theory to lay out his kitchen. The most connected resource? The trash can. It goes in the middle.

Direct link to file in a Linux-playable format...

[A.K.A_Magnet]

anyone ?

The page seems to set a cookie about your prefered video codec and you can't get direct link to the file, and it can either be a ".wax" or a ?"smil" file I cannot play.

Anyone gentle enough to provide a good ol' torrent or something ? and in a Linux-playable format.

Thanks

Book Revision

[MikeBiesanz]

Heard the interview on the way to work. I love that he gives something like $2.56 or something to everyone who finds a flaw in the book. He has cut checks for around 20K so far and that the first Book had 90% of it's pages altered in some way because of that. We have the same kind of thing where I work. Free 6pack to anyone finding a non-sensical phrase embedded in our documentation. Everyone actually peer reviews documentation now.

Re:Book Revision

[uhoreg]

And even though he may have cut checks for 20K, he's paid much less. Many people who have received checks from Knuth have them framed, and won't cash them in.

Open Source editing

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Interesting note (IMHO) If you look at his website, he is currently writing volume IV of the art of programming. He has posted drafts of chapters up and actively elicits feedback from readers. He goes as far as offering money for bugs found. Another one he adds is in his citations he wants full names...he will pay readers $2.56 per full name discovered on his list of incomplete names. This is a guy who understands the value of community development even when referring to the work of someone head and shoulders above the community.

Re:Explain

[twoshortplanks]

Someone who accomplishes something important at great risk to his own life is a hero, not someone who plods along for years at a job no matter how important his contributions.

So what you're saying is, someone who is willing to (potentially) give up their life is heroic, but someone who is prepared to dedicate their life to a goal is not? That someone who gambles their life, knowing that they may or may not be successful and return to a 'normal' life is more heroic than someone who instead knowingly commits to spending the rest of their life, year after year, trying to achieve something?

What I found interesting.

[LWATCDR]

"Do you believe that is a God?"
Knuth, "Yes I do."
Mr. Knuth goes on to talk about how it is good that there is no proof for God because makes him think about God. If there was a proof for God he would just solve it and to on.

This must make many people on Slashdot very happy. I have seen many posts claiming that only an idiot would believe in God. Think of how many people now have proof that they are smarter than Donald Knuth.

Re:What I found interesting.

[GigsVT]

How can you say there is no evidence of God? Surely the existance of highly organized life could lead a rational person to a theory that something created it.

I'm basically an agnostic too, but it's not a question of believing or not believing for me, I believe the question is unanswerable, in our current situation. I think a creator is plausible. I think there is evidence that could indicate creation. Evolution obviously does also happen, even in the short term, and I don't think any of my beliefs contradict evolutionary processes.

Re:What I found interesting.

[tattoi.nobori]

Believing in something, without facts to support that belief, does not make it true. I believe I'm the King of San Francisco. Does that make it true?

The problem is that -every- belief is probabilistic. "Facts" about the world are just highly probable beliefs. Outside the realm of mathematics, proof is a fiction.

Re:What I found interesting.

[WillAdams]

A classic experience relating to my perception of fundamentalism was w/ a friend's child who was finally taken to see her grandfather's workshop (he was a classic old-school cabinetmaker w/ the only power tool in his shop a band saw 'cause he couldn't find apprentices to do that sort of tedious thing who was said to ``make things by hand'').

The daughter on seeing the shop and the walls lined w/ neatly arranged saws, chisels, draw knives, planes, spokeshaves, clamps &c. shrieked, ``Mommy! You lied! Grandpa doesn't make things by hand! He uses tools!''

IME fundamental creationists exhibit a similar na{\"\i}vet\'e as to how God works.

William

Knuth was there first

[Animats]

Knuth was there first. When "Fundamental Algorithms" came out, there were almost no computer science books. There were vendor machine manuals, and books on programming languages. "A Fortran Primer", by Elliot Organick was about as good as it got. MIT students had a tech note series called HAKMEM, but few others saw those. There was a huge vacuum waiting to be filled. That's why "Fundamental Algorithms" got so much attention.

Re:He is a Christian

[webwalker]

And you are...who?

Why should you opinion matter?

Almost all of the very greatest minds in science have been people who believe in something that they can't prove. Even without a spiritual dimension, that thing can be called a 'theory'. How you view the world, even through the lense of less than 100% certainty, changes you. Hooray for God and other less empirical ideas.

Between knowing them and their work, and you shooting that hole in your face off, I'll side with them. Maybe I shouldn't be feeding you, trollboy, but the sheer towering cockiness I hear leaking out of your skull leads me to hope I never have to put my life on the line for one of your scientific theories.

RMW

Re:I think he came off as having OCD

[hey!]

History is full of examples of geniuses that were barely balanced between the two,

Yeah, Isaac Newton for one. See Will Dunham's book "Journey through Genius" in which he describes a disgusting little experiment Sir Isaac performed with a pointed stick and his eyeball.

Just because someone is functional doesn't mean they're normal and not sick.

I'd say if a person is productive in society, and happy, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that he's sick. Even Sir Isaac. This sense that somebody who is a genius is necessarily a bit sick is an attractive myth -- it consoles the great body of us that aren't blessed with genius.

Re:TeX

[14erCleaner]

he is also the creator of TeX

My personal Knuth story: in 1979, when I was just starting graduate school at the University of Illinois, Knuth came on campus to give three lectures as that year's Gillies Lecture.

At the time, the second edition of Volume I had just come out, and everybody was eagerly awaiting volumes 4 through 7. The lectures were all packed, and the great man, inventor of LR parsing and author of the definitive tome on computer science, spoke on...

typesetting and fonts.

Don't get me wrong, the lectures were interesting, but it didn't seem all that fundamental to computer science, if you get my meaning. 25 years later, we're still waiting for volume 4 to be completed, but at least the new editions of 1-3 had nice fonts.

The following year, Douglas Hofstadter came to campus to speak. This was fairly soon after Godel, Escher, Bach came out, so we were all excited to see what cool and interesting CS things he would lecture on. His lecture turned to be on...

typesetting and fonts.

I guess it was just the thing to do at that time; little did I suspect that much of the productivity of US offices in the 90's would be spent selecting fonts for documents. I guess great thinkers are just ahead of their time.

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[kwoff]

• How many GUIs give you the option of not streaming? You at least have a chance to do it.
• How hard would it be to script that and wrap it in a GUI?

Re:I'll tell you what's heroic

[Alien Being]

"Woah.. that was easy"

Yep, cut+paste. Try explaining how to save/convert that file in Windows using only a mouse.

Re:TeX

[alerante]

I find it interesting that the interview was broadcast on Pi Day (3/14).

Re:Why do you like Knuth?

[nate nice]

Wow, didn't know he was the man behind LR(1) (which in case others don't know is probably used millions of times every day) (and I've read the dragon book!). You are correct, Yacc/Bison use the LR(1) parsing algorithm. I just recently studied that algorithm in depth and have never seen a more beautiful algorithm. The way it augments the grammar and keeps shifting tokens with some reduction only to reduce everything that is left at the end is stunning. It's definitely an algorithm I can say I would have never thought of. Not to mention the use of basic data structure primitives it makes use of...beautiful.

But, many modern Parsers use LL parsing, such as Java. The main problem with them is they are not as intuitive and they don't accept left recursive grammars. However, they seem to be really popular now days because they use less memory on the fly. I'm not too familiar with them honestly...usually use LR(1) grammars as they are very flexible and do the trick just fine. Not to mention most "real" languages don't use Bison/Yacc for their parsers and I do so I am forced to use them. But I love them just the same (and folks who know more of compilers could probably have a nicely heated debate on what's better)

Thanx for the info!