Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Think about Loose Coupling
 
PerlMonks  

Re^4: supertree construction in perl

by zing (Beadle)
on Oct 20, 2012 at 17:11 UTC ( #1000142=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^3: supertree construction in perl
in thread supertree construction in perl

BrowserUK here is the original paper by Alfred Aho(1981, SIAM journal of computing) on which my research is based. The paper is more approachable by computer scientists unlike the recent ones that I posted in here. http://www.smallfiles.org/download/2927/Aho_et_al_paper.pdf.html


Comment on Re^4: supertree construction in perl
Re^5: supertree construction in perl
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Oct 20, 2012 at 22:20 UTC
    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:

    1. Make some pastry;
    2. Fill it with some lemon filling;
    3. Top it with some meringue;
    4. Cook it.

    Maybe the details are described somewhere in the pages of words; but

      the language used is so obscure;

      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.

    • Terminology is used without explanation or reference;

      WTF is a "distinguished variable"? Wikipedia doesn't have an explanation. Google has a whole 10,000 uses of the term; but no definitions that I could find.

    • Likewise, notation is introduced without either explanation -- or purpose;

      compute Zrc $1, $2, , Sr;

      Compute what? (And more to the point: How?)

    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.

    RIP Neil Armstrong

      Needless to say .....I Agree with you 100 percent sir !!!!! That's the sorry plight of research papers. They have their own world, in which they think they are the best and have fenced the boundaries so that no one else could trespass.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1000142]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others surveying the Monastery: (10)
As of 2014-09-02 07:43 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite cookbook is:










    Results (20 votes), past polls