That's indeed the problem in many cases, especially for climate simulations, where the accuracy only grows logarithmically with the number of data points.
There are other reasons why you might need more data points, too, like you just want to calculate a larger system. For example, if you are not interested in simple molecules like water, but complicated ones like proteins.
Imagine a simulation in 3D space. You model the space by a cube of 100x100x100 grid points. That's one million data points. Now say you have to do some calculation on them which scales quadratic in the number of data points. Say you manage to finish the calculation in one hour on some computer.
OK, but now you notice that those 100 data points in each direction are to inaccurate. You need 1000 points to be reasonably accurate. So now your data set is not one million, but one billion data points. And your O(N^2) algorithm makes sure that this factor 1000 in the number of grid points ends up as a factor one million in your computing time. So now the calculation would, on the same computer, need one million hours, or about 114 years. You almost certainly don't want to wait 114 years to get your results.
I don't think anyone wanted to suggest you'd get rid of ads (that's what adblock is for). What you'd get rid of is the ability of the web server's owner to find out where you live.
They cut off his salary, and moved him to a basement office - but that darn Gates keeps coming in! Can't a guy take a hint?
Well, as true nerds know, true nerd power always comes from the basement. Ideally, the parents' basement, but I guess for Bill Gates, Microsoft's basement will do.
It's impossible to fully all possible games of chess. The game tree complexity is about 10^123, whereas the number of atoms in the universe is thought to be somewhere between 10^79 and 10^81. Thus, it's impossible to brute force the game since you can't store all the possible states.
While you're right that it's impossible, the reason you give is wrong: You wouldn't have to store all the possible states at once. After you've determined that you cannot win with a certain move, you don't need to store all those states this move can lead to. And if you determined a winning move, you only have to store the sequence of winning moves. The real problem is time. Even if you could check one move per Planck time (the shortest possible time interval, ca. 5*10^-44s), you'd still need about 5*10^79 seconds, or about 1.5*10^72 years. For comparison, the universe is about 1.5*10^9 years old.
This answer is wrong. The correct solution would have been: What is the answer to life, the universe and everything?
wrong again:
What is the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything?
No.
"O Deep Thought Computer," he said, "the task we have designed you to perform is this. We want you to tell us..." he paused, "...the Answer!" "The answer?" said Deep Thought. "The answer to what?" "Life!" urged Fook. "The Universe!" said Lunkwill. "Everything!" they said in chorus.
Blaming the programmers is stupid - as his own article shows. (eg. "[don't assume] Names are case-sensitive. [don't assume] Names are case-insensitive".
OK, so how should, in his opinion, the system be programmed? Having a check box to tell whether the name is case sensitive or not? But then, there's surely someone with a name where some part is case sensitive, while others are not.
OK, I've got the ultimate solution for him. Instead of simply asking for a name, ask for a piece of code implementing a function which gets a name as input, and as result gives true (yes, this is a valid way to write my name) or no (no, that's not a valid way to write my name).
OK, but there's another problem:
11. People’s names are all mapped in Unicode code points.
So we cannot simply accept normal strings, because whatever character set we assume, there is always the possibility of a character which isn't in it. Well, let's make a drawing area where anyone can write his name. The function above would get the drawing area and decide if what is found in there is a valid writing of the name.
But wait, there might be names that cannot be written! Well, allow audio files as well! Actually, allow the user to come up with data any way he likes; since he is the one writing the function to recognize it, it's his problem to identify it.
What, too hard for you to write your own matching function? Well, then simply accept that computers simply cannot handle any conceivable situation. If your name doesn't fit into Unicode, well, then transcribe it. Have several ways to write your name? Well, just chose one to use at the system and stick to it. Why should programmers try to do the impossible just because you cannot decide how to write your name?
Pro-Tip for everyone: The above is the ONLY way to commit suicide.
That's not true. There are many other methods, it's just that most of them are not available for most people. Here's a list of other sure ways to commit suicide:
Blow up an atomic bomb above your head.
Let a 100 ton iron block fall on you.
Get into a space capsule and let it burn up in the atmosphere at reentry.
Sit under the main thruster during the start of a rocket.
Slashdot Mirror
Queue porn? Is that porn showing sex in a queue?
So it knows the unit assload?
That's indeed the problem in many cases, especially for climate simulations, where the accuracy only grows logarithmically with the number of data points.
There are other reasons why you might need more data points, too, like you just want to calculate a larger system. For example, if you are not interested in simple molecules like water, but complicated ones like proteins.
No, PETAflops. Computers fighting for animal rights.
Imagine a simulation in 3D space. You model the space by a cube of 100x100x100 grid points. That's one million data points. Now say you have to do some calculation on them which scales quadratic in the number of data points. Say you manage to finish the calculation in one hour on some computer.
OK, but now you notice that those 100 data points in each direction are to inaccurate. You need 1000 points to be reasonably accurate. So now your data set is not one million, but one billion data points. And your O(N^2) algorithm makes sure that this factor 1000 in the number of grid points ends up as a factor one million in your computing time. So now the calculation would, on the same computer, need one million hours, or about 114 years. You almost certainly don't want to wait 114 years to get your results.
Are you sure the match was made in heaven? :-)
Sorry, but DOS attacks are utterly outdated. Today you use Windows for your attacks.
SCNR
I don't think anyone wanted to suggest you'd get rid of ads (that's what adblock is for). What you'd get rid of is the ability of the web server's owner to find out where you live.
Quintillion is not an SI prefix. The next step after Peta is Exa.
You know that ISS stands for International Space Station?
That is logically possible, because removing something may be an improvement.
Well, as true nerds know, true nerd power always comes from the basement. Ideally, the parents' basement, but I guess for Bill Gates, Microsoft's basement will do.
"OK, the plate seems to be: Victor-India-Alpha-Golf-Romeo-Alpha."
While you're right that it's impossible, the reason you give is wrong: You wouldn't have to store all the possible states at once. After you've determined that you cannot win with a certain move, you don't need to store all those states this move can lead to. And if you determined a winning move, you only have to store the sequence of winning moves. The real problem is time. Even if you could check one move per Planck time (the shortest possible time interval, ca. 5*10^-44s), you'd still need about 5*10^79 seconds, or about 1.5*10^72 years. For comparison, the universe is about 1.5*10^9 years old.
What do you get if you multiply six with nine?
I have a feeling you're going to want to take this one back ;)
I have a feeling you might want to read Douglas Adams. :-)
This answer is wrong. The correct solution would have been:
What is the answer to life, the universe and everything?
wrong again:
What is the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything?
No.
"O Deep Thought Computer," he said, "the task we have designed you to
perform is this. We want you to tell us..." he paused, "...the Answer!"
"The answer?" said Deep Thought. "The answer to what?"
"Life!" urged Fook.
"The Universe!" said Lunkwill.
"Everything!" they said in chorus.
No "meaning of" in there.
Little Bobby Tables, is that you?
That's not an example, because
OK, so how should, in his opinion, the system be programmed? Having a check box to tell whether the name is case sensitive or not? But then, there's surely someone with a name where some part is case sensitive, while others are not.
OK, I've got the ultimate solution for him. Instead of simply asking for a name, ask for a piece of code implementing a function which gets a name as input, and as result gives true (yes, this is a valid way to write my name) or no (no, that's not a valid way to write my name).
OK, but there's another problem:
11. People’s names are all mapped in Unicode code points.
So we cannot simply accept normal strings, because whatever character set we assume, there is always the possibility of a character which isn't in it. Well, let's make a drawing area where anyone can write his name. The function above would get the drawing area and decide if what is found in there is a valid writing of the name.
But wait, there might be names that cannot be written! Well, allow audio files as well! Actually, allow the user to come up with data any way he likes; since he is the one writing the function to recognize it, it's his problem to identify it.
What, too hard for you to write your own matching function? Well, then simply accept that computers simply cannot handle any conceivable situation. If your name doesn't fit into Unicode, well, then transcribe it. Have several ways to write your name? Well, just chose one to use at the system and stick to it. Why should programmers try to do the impossible just because you cannot decide how to write your name?
What is an example of a tongue twister?
What do you get if you multiply six with nine?
This answer is wrong. The correct solution would have been:
What is the answer to life, the universe and everything?
This is Jeopardy. You give the answer and it is supposed to give the question.
Now what question has the answer 42?
Skynet?
That's not true. There are many other methods, it's just that most of them are not available for most people. Here's a list of other sure ways to commit suicide: