11–20 of 32 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>former child prodigy I understand the idea behind that phrasing but I'm not sure I agree with it. Are you no longer a child prodigy once you turn 18? I don't think I'd ever say "former intelligent child".. Would I?
Well he was a child prodigy, but he is no longer a child. A suitable replacement would need to reword the sentence to be about the same length and include that detail without the odd sounding wording.
First you ask how the hell someone could come up with this construction. Then you realize it was this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Demaine
>former child prodigy I understand the idea behind that phrasing but I'm not sure I agree with it. Are you no longer a child prodigy once you turn 18? I don't think I'd ever say "former intelligent child".. Would I?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well he was a child prodigy, but he is no longer a child. A suitable replacement would need to reword the sentence to be about the same length and include that detail without the odd sounding wording.
How about just prodigy?
Somewhere along the line you convert from child prodigy to genius assuming you maintained your ability above the rest of the pack.
That's reminicient of the post correspondence problem. Is the PCP still undecidable for sets of three strings?
First you ask how the hell someone could come up with this construction. Then you realize it was this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Demaine
So, still a great result, but not as out there as one may think.
I think it's also worth pointing out that in theoretical CS and most of math, it is common to list authors alphabetically. I don't think we have a way of knowing the relative contribution of the two authors. Demaine is obviously accomplished, but I find the kind of hero worship found in this thread distasteful and the facts don't support it here. Give credit to Langerman; Demaine surely would!
First you ask how the hell someone could come up with this construction. Then you realize it was this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Demaine
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>former child prodigy I understand the idea behind that phrasing but I'm not sure I agree with it. Are you no longer a child prodigy once you turn 18? I don't think I'd ever say "former intelligent child".. Would I?
This is why I refer to my wife as my ex-girlfriend.
First you ask how the hell someone could come up with this construction. Then you realize it was this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Demaine
>former child prodigy I understand the idea behind that phrasing but I'm not sure I agree with it. Are you no longer a child prodigy once you turn 18? I don't think I'd ever say "former intelligent child".. Would I?
First you ask how the hell someone could come up with this construction. Then you realize it was this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Demaine
His lectures are absolute gold. He explains everything so clearly, simply, and efficiently.
I started skipping lectures in favor of watching his videos, and it saved me countless of hours -- and I got a perfect mark :)