Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Computer scientists invent an efficient new way to count

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 299 posts

Re: Computer scientists invent an efficient new way to count

#11

Post by 112233 »

vlovich123 wrote: post #6
imoverclocked wrote: post #3

When do we stop calling this counting and start calling it estimation?

As soon as people start reading past the headline.

tbh, the title (and introduction) did a lot to dissuade me from finishing the (really good) article. It was actually informative, why dress it as a SEO blogspam?

Re: Computer scientists invent an efficient new way to count

#12

Post by wmwragg »

akamoonknight wrote: post #9

I don't know a word or phrase for this, but I really enjoy any examples of "thinking outside the box" like this because it's something I struggle with in my professional career. Learning not only the right ways to solve problems, but figuring out the questions to ask that make solving the problems you have easier or even in some cases possible. In this case, it's hey, we don't need exact numbers if we can define a pr…

I think it's generally thought of as "lateral thinking", Edward de Bono has written a few books about it you might find interesting.

Re: Computer scientists invent an efficient new way to count

#15

Post by seanhunter »

112233 wrote: post #11
vlovich123 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as people start reading past the headline.

tbh, the title (and introduction) did a lot to dissuade me from finishing the (really good) article. It was actually informative, why dress it as a SEO blogspam?

Presumably so it is optimised for search engines and people find it.

Publishers generally have good data about where their audience comes from. They wouldn't do this if it wasn't the best way they know of to maximise readership.

Re: Computer scientists invent an efficient new way to count

#16

Post by 8372049 »

biscuit1v9 wrote: post #7

> The trick, he said, is to rely on randomization. > When the space is full, press pause and flip a coin for each word. Heads, and the word stays on the list; tails, and you delete it. I wasn't expecting to go that far: randomization. How can you verify if the answer is good? Only approximation, maybe..

Did you read the (entire) article?

Re: Computer scientists invent an efficient new way to count

#17

Post by seanhunter »

biscuit1v9 wrote: post #7

> The trick, he said, is to rely on randomization. > When the space is full, press pause and flip a coin for each word. Heads, and the word stays on the list; tails, and you delete it. I wasn't expecting to go that far: randomization. How can you verify if the answer is good? Only approximation, maybe..

The proof is pretty straightforward and is included in the paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10191

Re: Computer scientists invent an efficient new way to count

#18

Post by HDThoreaun »

112233 wrote: post #11
vlovich123 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as people start reading past the headline.

tbh, the title (and introduction) did a lot to dissuade me from finishing the (really good) article. It was actually informative, why dress it as a SEO blogspam?

So they can get paid for their work? Are you giving them anything?

Re: Computer scientists invent an efficient new way to count

#19

Post by HDThoreaun »

biscuit1v9 wrote: post #7

> The trick, he said, is to rely on randomization. > When the space is full, press pause and flip a coin for each word. Heads, and the word stays on the list; tails, and you delete it. I wasn't expecting to go that far: randomization. How can you verify if the answer is good? Only approximation, maybe..

Yes, the result is an estimation.
Post reply on HN