slackenerny

7 ms·

1.
by slackenerny 7y ago
Plan9 was a network operating system, and with a focus on concurrency a new language Alef was designed with coroutines based on CSP formalism (Hoare's communicating sequential processes). That was redesigned in Limbo language on Dis ga
2.
by slackenerny 9y ago
Book already referenced by GP, click your links. These are old classic conference proceedings edited by Zurek https://archive.org/details/ComplexityEntropyAndThePhysicsOf... but it’s a mixed bag unless you really fancy
3.
by slackenerny 9y ago
Montanari/Mezard perhaps?
4.
by slackenerny 9y ago
A. Hey edited „Feynman Lectures on Computation” for publication and later collected some assorted papers of guest lecturers Feynman would invite in „Feynman and computation – exploring the limits of computers”. This „It from bit” paper by W
5.
by slackenerny 16y ago
Also, it is prof. Vakil who hosts the MathOverflow site you surely heard of. Literature recommendations are sometimes also discussed. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/2446/best-algebraic-geomet... http://mathoverflow.net/questions/3041/
6.
by slackenerny 16y ago
Amusing fact is it didn't take long at all, compared to some later approaches ;) http://mathoverflow.net/questions/14356/bourbakis-epsilon-ca... And a twist you might find worthy a mention in your forthcoming essay, http://mathoverflow.n
7.
by slackenerny 16y ago
I downvoted you without second thought, as I believe people change and holding them accountable for everything they've ever done forever is cruel. However, now that I recall this lionhearted guy better, I think he should be held to his own
8.
by slackenerny 16y ago
I spent half an hour composing meaningful description of insignificance of the work (without judging if it is indeed a result, attacked "uniqueness" is more of a technicality than anything much of a big deal) only to find out author also pu
9.
by slackenerny 16y ago
Cool, this. A very nifty (if somewhat detailed) complexity analysis of the Algorithm X appeared in blogosphere's festschrift for Knuth's 70, http://11011110.livejournal.com/128249.html I've used P159 in my absolutely first assignment in t
10.
by slackenerny 16y ago
$100 in parts, according to this guy: http://vicacopter.com I tried (unsuccessfully) to make his design a year ago and it was more like $300 though, and that assuming you have the RF equipment. Guy works at NASA I think. The claim that hi
11.
by slackenerny 17y ago
I remember that too. It was, as you say, a while ago, meaning long time outdated. And I indeed recall it to be pg-posted, but instead all I can find is this non-pg release with all links broken: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=173045 .
12.
by slackenerny 17y ago
Do you have a reference for that review? http://www.cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/1997-November/000128.htm...
13.
by slackenerny 17y ago
at least learn to spell his name! Thank you for this most kind and substantial observation. In my defense, Hoyle used to joke of himself like that since concieving his steady-state cosmology where matter constantly flowed out of a "hole";
14.
by slackenerny 17y ago
Since Dyson contributed half of quantum electrodynamics, and we have numerous Dyson theorems; and since Penrose contributed half of present classical gravity, and we have numerous Penrose theorems, including celebrated Penrose-Hawking incom
15.
by slackenerny 17y ago
not quantum mechanics Except the twistor formalism he created (following ideas of no one else but Dirac) is important branch of research in quantum mathematical physics and string theory, not only classical gravity. Just like Hawking or F
16.
by slackenerny 17y ago
Thanks :) I now know the structure, that's why I "grew" to appreciate Gardner nowadays (albeit now I also find he's doing many things "simple as possible and even simpler" (contrary to the Einstein quote) and thus... still unnecessarily con
17.
by slackenerny 17y ago
I grew to like Gardner's writings somewhat now. They however, indirectly, had almost devastating effect on my earlier life, promoting sort of mathematics I never could do. There is "bag of tricks" culture of mathematics ( http://www.dpmms.c
18.
by slackenerny 17y ago
Most detailed explanation in the blogosphere is "Why Stuff is Hard" by Jim Pivarski, http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/08/08/why-stuff-is-har... http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/08/11/why-everything-i... http://cornellmath.wor
19.
by slackenerny 17y ago
Sanjeev Arora, paper's coauthor, but also leading expert on approximations to NP-hard problems, has posted a FAQ detailing why he thinks no approximation would help, http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rongge/derivativeFAQ.html And also his resp
20.
by slackenerny 17y ago
If they really do is not proven. Chroloplast is a chemical device that obeys quantum chemistry and thus is hampered by quantum decoherence. But if how molecules there organize to overcome this is truly and not only seemingly isomorphic to p
21.
by slackenerny 17y ago
Original artwork: http://books.nationalgeographic.com/map/map-day/2008/10/sola... Someone extracted the image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamcrowe/4002050596/ I wonder what the original credits are though.
22.
by slackenerny 17y ago
Is there a reason why an approximate solution to the dense subgraph problem could not allow I haven't read the paper either ;] (just skimmed bibliography to get a sense, as I usually do first) but Arora (one of the authors) is an expert o
23.
by slackenerny 17y ago
More of crazy Whitney code available at http://aplusdev.org
24.
by slackenerny 17y ago
The NT kernel is the most beautiful piece of code I've seen Modulo Plan9 kernel. It's also lot smaller a read (ca. 50 KLoC and that's it). NT kernel itself doesn't have source out but for folks who are students And folks who are hackers
25.
by slackenerny 17y ago
According to James Simons, "The average annual income of leading research mathematicians (those, say, with at least three articles in the Annals of Mathematics) is about 10,000,000 USD" ;]
26.
by slackenerny 17y ago
"widely held view" ;) No. But it makes it "shared by many", your original quantification. You see, you're misreading for the numerous time. First you didn't care to read what OP linked and went into generalisations having nothing to do with
27.
by slackenerny 17y ago
No, superior way would be to refrain from talking with people at all when I clearly see I'm not up to challenge. Especially to refrain from meta discussions. As Richard Hamming said, one may either just do research accepting things as they
28.
by slackenerny 17y ago
impossible to exclude SPJ from any sensible definition of "theoretical computer science" Yes, there is. Vide my last sentence above. Proving that is futile because you want to argue anywas and as I said I'm not that eloquent. Nobody takes
29.
by slackenerny 17y ago
What one community decides to define itself as isn't really a concern of mine. Ehh, then I won't be able to convince you that it's not true that what you called crazy view on TCS is in fact common view. Not that I was able to do that anyw
30.
by slackenerny 17y ago
Sorry for not responding for a long time. I didn't mean to be snarky above, sorry about that too. I wrote a bit more here, but wasn't satisfied with how it went so its no more. It was anyways mainly about Sturmfels' programme of reasoning a

More ›