|Problems? Is your data what you think it is?|
Re^5: supertree construction in perlby BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Oct 20, 2012 at 22:20 UTC||Need Help??|
The paper is more approachable by computer scientists
Hm. "Approachable"? Makes it sound like I might be intimidated by the other paper. I'm not. I'm disgusted by it.
It annoys me that academia continues to require that thesis be written in such an obfuscated manner; that they continue to emphasis form over content; that thesis writing has become an art-form an end unto itself, devoid of purpose beyond impressing the promoters of that art.
The purpose should be to: describe a problem, the history of that problem, a (new) approach to solving it, and the analysis of that solution; as clearly and simply as possible. But it is rarely ever done that way.
the original paper by Alfred Aho(1981, SIAM journal of computing) on which my research is based.
I've only given it a once over so far, but frankly, it does not seem any better to me. Presumably, as you've come back here looking for help, you don't get it either.
The procedure on the second page that purports to be an "algorithm description" is nothing of the sort. It is more of a "wish list". It is the equivalent of calling the following a recipe for a Lemon Meringue Pie:
Maybe the details are described somewhere in the pages of words; but
I've a pretty good vocabulary, but I had to look up the meaning of 'consonant' in this context; and there are a dozen, more common, simpler words that could be substituted for it.
And there are many other examples: 'tableau' instead of 'table'; etc.
The algorithm may or may not be good; but the description is utter meaningless garbage.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.