S.o.s!!

[Sip]

Re: S.o.s!!

Siamanto, you are CLEARLY demonstrating how little knowledge you have of how algorithms have been evolving. You see the word "algorithm" and you seem to associate it with known results such as QuickSort or Dijkstra's shortest path or some other elementary text book example. Just making a RIDICULOUS statement such as "algorithms are not a challenge anymore" (which I do paraphrase to "dismissing as child's play" whether you like it or not) shows you have a LOT of catching up to do in this domain.

If you really think algorithms are not a challenge anymore, I guess you are quite satisfied with your email clients ability to filter spam, the amazing efficiency of airlines, traffic congestions in large cities, the search results you get from google, etc etc etc ...

Do you REALLY want to insist on claiming that those are solved problems? I am not even going to bring AI into this ... as I'm sure you will claim that AI algorithms are also not a challenge and they are good enough to build your airport.

[Sip]

Re: S.o.s!!

So, I would say, whether algorithms are relevant or not, depends on which type of an algorithm is in question.

AMEN to that. I have tried so hard to get this across to Siamanto but he is just stuck in his tunnel vision. Normally I would be much more polite in my replies but that strategy just doesn't seem to work with him. He keeps mentioning large enterprises, code reuse, modeling, large scale architectures (software) but fails to recognize that all of what he is talking about is restricted to a very specific and limited computing domain and is not at all universal.

There are many examples of other domains of computing where his view of the world simply do not apply. I will give a simple example of web search ... you type a query and get a result in fraction of a second. Now think what went on for you to get that result... How dynamic the data is ... how large the data is ... how limited the query is and how specific the results have to be ... and potentially just how many billions of such requests you have to process on a daily basis! If after thinking about this seriously for a few minutes you still want to claim working on such an algorithm is not a challenge, then either you are an ultimate genius waaaaaaaay beyond me in your capabilities, or you are an idiot.

[Sip]

Re: S.o.s!!

There are countless examples of this. By the way, here's an interesting fact: the linear programming problem was first shown to be solvable in polynomial time by Leonid Khachiyan in 1979.

I had the pleasure of attending a talk by Andranik Mirzaian a few years ago on this topic and I was absolutely blown away by the elegance of his solution to LP.

I will admit that I never quite understood how exactly Khachiyan's ellipsoid method works but from what I understand, the complexity there is still exponential in terms of the bit size of data (i.e. it's weakly polynomial). As the data can get quite large, this is not really that good in practice and that's why the old Simplex methods have been working really well since Danzig's days. Mirzaian was claiming his algorithm is strongly polynomial (polynomial even on the bit size of the data) which of course is a very amazing claim. Even though his approach seemed very cool at the time, he never produced a proof and I can't find any publications on the topic.

I really hope he has the result and is only sitting on it to polish it up before publishing!!! It would be a shame if he found some flaw in it ... but if it is in fact still a valid result, this would be a REALLY cool thing as Armenians will pretty much OWN LP

[Sip]

Re: S.o.s!!

HA! I found some of my old notes from his talk and the conversation I had with him afterwards!!! ... and I almost never take notes. Karoaper, if you are interested, I can email you more details.

[axel]

Re: S.o.s!!

known results such as QuickSort

Apparently some people seem to be still enthusiastic about quicksort (see chapter 3 of the book "Beautiful Code" )

fails to recognize that all of what he is talking about is restricted to a very specific and limited computing domain

Yes but the fact that a lot of industrial activity fall into this domain can make it appear (to practitioners) as the alpha and omega of computer science. Still software engineering/architecture is but a small part of CS (one which is actually often despised in academic circles)

[axel]

Re: S.o.s!!

Do you REALLY want to insist on claiming that those are solved problems? I am not even going to bring AI into this ...

Whether it pleases you or not, I will speak for all those who are fed up with "your crew's" crap and manipulations.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

[Sip]

Re: S.o.s!!

Who exactly is "my crew"?

[Sip]

Re: S.o.s!!

Axel, if you mean "academics" (as the crew), I should probably clarify that I have never seen myself as, or identified myself with academics so I will not be defending any of that crew here I have always been (or tried to be) a "doer" as in one who looks for a real problem and works towards solving it.

At the same time, I can certainly appreciate algorithmic elegance and the beauty of a well founded theoretical approach ... but I have NEVER been one to subscribe to the school of theory for the sake of theory.

Edit: By the way, I still think QuickSort is cool (obviously not a challenge though) ... But if that makes me a naive idiot, so be it

[axel]

Re: S.o.s!!

Sip, that was meant as a joke.
(see http://forum.armenianclub.com/showpo...2&postcount=90)

[Sip]

Re: S.o.s!!

Aha ... thanks for the link ... I hadn't seen that thread.

On a related yet unrelated note, the recent discussion here did make me start to think about the line or distinction between algorithm and theory. Much like the parallel with "pure" and "applied" math or physics, I guess one could also distinguish pure and applied CS?