In this case you ought to say "there is an order of magnitude more software available...(base Y)".
Otherwise, using your argument, for the same numbers you could equally say "there is a constant factor more more software available", in that for X ARM apps there are X*c x386 apps for c > 1
Obviously this is true for the constant c = X^(Y-1)
As soon as you start playing with two constants, there is an infinite number of functions that can interpolate between them (and hence describe their relationship). This includes exponential functions, polynomial, constant, sinusoidal, linear...
"Begs the question" has a specific meaning related to circular arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Here the combination of two Atom processes raised a question as to what constitutes a netbook. No begging involved.
At my university, lab computers are iMacs with Vista, OS X, and Edubuntu installed. Almost all students use Windows, but the tech staff can easily handle requests from linux users.
Seriously though, if you run a linux distribution on your laptop then you really ought to be capable to set up wifi and printing yourself.
I have had the exact same experience (with all desktop effects turned off). Switching to OpenSolaris 2008.11 has made a world of difference. I've never had a computer feel so snappy. If you're game enough to try Windows betas then I suggest you try OS out as well.
What is the practical reason that a list of 100,000 domains is going to result in a less efficient network than 10,000? Is there something wrong with their implementation of a hashtable?
Despite calling them GAs, the grand-parent is referring to Genetic Programming.
Canonical GAs are never the correct tool for a problem. They combine a crude random local search (mutation) with the cross-over operator that is intended to splice partial solutions. The trouble is that even on problems designed to be exploited by GAs, like the Royal Road, a random restart hill-climber will perform better with the same number of fitness evaluations.
I'm not as familiar with GP, but given the minute number of attributes quoted and millions of fitness evaluations... I'd say a typical greedy tree learner would perform much, much better.
PDF isn't what you really want. I have a Hanlin V3 and I'll take HTML or plain text over PDF any day.
PDFs have fixed size pages - they're designed for printing onto physical paper. E-book readers are paper-back book sized, not A4 (or letter or whatever) as most PDFs use. This means they have to either scale it down to almost illegible sized text, or you have to scroll around each page.
This isn't a shortcoming of the readers, more a short-sightedness on those who generated the PDFs. Maybe someday someone will start using proper page sizes to produce e-books.. one can only hope.
There are very, very few quantum algorithms designed so far because of the difficulty of picking the "right" answer out of the superposition.
The collapsing of the states at the time of measure is purely random (across the probability distribution of the states). The trick with most algorithms like Shor's and Grover's is to use the interference between states to eliminate (or at least minimise) the "wrong" answers before measurement takes place. All the ones I've encountered manage to pick the right answer with high probability - I've yet to see a deterministic, correct, quantum algorithm.
In brief, the answer is yes, you can use a variation of fuzzy logic to emulate a quantum computer. Unfortunately no complexity gains can be made as the emulation cannot exploit a superposition to calculate in parallel.
While both a fuzzy bit and a qubit could have a state like 0(75%) 1(25%), having a computer perform a fuzzy operation requires two computations (one for each possible state) whereas a quantum computer can apply a single operation to the qubit and have it affect both states.
One difference however, is that for qubits the weights on each state are complex (as opposed to real-valued). This means that interference can occur when, for example, the weights on two qubits being combined have the same magnitude but opposite phase. The true awesome magic of Shor's algorithm is how the computation expands into a massive superposition (parallel computation) and then manages to exploit the interference to return to just a single possible answer before it comes time to measure.
I agree with most of what you are saying, with the exception of the "limited audience". Art should be "...aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others." - Britannica online via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art.
Now a lay-person seeing this would be impressed by the art of the code, whereas the programs of the article would only impress with the art of their output. Compare "Programming As Art" with "Programming Art".
If the connections all go forward in time then it is a directed acyclic graph. To form a cycle some arc must go "backwards" up the graph.
Trees are a subset of directed acyclic graphs are a subset of directed graphs (there's no term "cyclic graph"). The parent post was mistaken and should have said that the tree of life is not a tree, but is a directed acyclic graph.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case you ought to say "there is an order of magnitude more software available...(base Y)".
Otherwise, using your argument, for the same numbers you could equally say "there is a constant factor more more software available", in that for X ARM apps there are X*c x386 apps for c > 1
Obviously this is true for the constant c = X^(Y-1)
As soon as you start playing with two constants, there is an infinite number of functions that can interpolate between them (and hence describe their relationship). This includes exponential functions, polynomial, constant, sinusoidal, linear...
"Begs the question" has a specific meaning related to circular arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Here the combination of two Atom processes raised a question as to what constitutes a netbook. No begging involved.
At my university, lab computers are iMacs with Vista, OS X, and Edubuntu installed. Almost all students use Windows, but the tech staff can easily handle requests from linux users. Seriously though, if you run a linux distribution on your laptop then you really ought to be capable to set up wifi and printing yourself.
The answer is: we don't know. Noone's devised a polynomial time quantum algorithm for any of the NP-complete problems yet.
I have had the exact same experience (with all desktop effects turned off). Switching to OpenSolaris 2008.11 has made a world of difference. I've never had a computer feel so snappy. If you're game enough to try Windows betas then I suggest you try OS out as well.
What is the practical reason that a list of 100,000 domains is going to result in a less efficient network than 10,000? Is there something wrong with their implementation of a hashtable?
Canonical GAs are never the correct tool for a problem. They combine a crude random local search (mutation) with the cross-over operator that is intended to splice partial solutions. The trouble is that even on problems designed to be exploited by GAs, like the Royal Road, a random restart hill-climber will perform better with the same number of fitness evaluations.
I'm not as familiar with GP, but given the minute number of attributes quoted and millions of fitness evaluations... I'd say a typical greedy tree learner would perform much, much better.
PDF isn't what you really want. I have a Hanlin V3 and I'll take HTML or plain text over PDF any day.
PDFs have fixed size pages - they're designed for printing onto physical paper. E-book readers are paper-back book sized, not A4 (or letter or whatever) as most PDFs use. This means they have to either scale it down to almost illegible sized text, or you have to scroll around each page.
This isn't a shortcoming of the readers, more a short-sightedness on those who generated the PDFs. Maybe someday someone will start using proper page sizes to produce e-books.. one can only hope.
The NTSC vs PAL example doesn't work (assuming you mean that PAL is the superior format).
Where I'm sitting I see PAL DVDs, and it appears that most of the world are in the same situation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PAL-NTSC-SECAM.svg. PAL won.
http://www.puzzlepirates.com/Yarrr..
There are very, very few quantum algorithms designed so far because of the difficulty of picking the "right" answer out of the superposition.
The collapsing of the states at the time of measure is purely random (across the probability distribution of the states). The trick with most algorithms like Shor's and Grover's is to use the interference between states to eliminate (or at least minimise) the "wrong" answers before measurement takes place. All the ones I've encountered manage to pick the right answer with high probability - I've yet to see a deterministic, correct, quantum algorithm.
In brief, the answer is yes, you can use a variation of fuzzy logic to emulate a quantum computer. Unfortunately no complexity gains can be made as the emulation cannot exploit a superposition to calculate in parallel.
While both a fuzzy bit and a qubit could have a state like 0(75%) 1(25%), having a computer perform a fuzzy operation requires two computations (one for each possible state) whereas a quantum computer can apply a single operation to the qubit and have it affect both states.
One difference however, is that for qubits the weights on each state are complex (as opposed to real-valued). This means that interference can occur when, for example, the weights on two qubits being combined have the same magnitude but opposite phase. The true awesome magic of Shor's algorithm is how the computation expands into a massive superposition (parallel computation) and then manages to exploit the interference to return to just a single possible answer before it comes time to measure.
A fine example that is more than just elegant code is given at http://search.cpan.org/~jnagra/Acme-Smirch-0.91/Smirch.pm
Now a lay-person seeing this would be impressed by the art of the code, whereas the programs of the article would only impress with the art of their output. Compare "Programming As Art" with "Programming Art".
Trees are a subset of directed acyclic graphs are a subset of directed graphs (there's no term "cyclic graph"). The parent post was mistaken and should have said that the tree of life is not a tree, but is a directed acyclic graph.
Everyone likes nit-picking.
It's nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Ok, maybe not mirrors.