in reply to Re: supertree construction in perl
in thread supertree construction in perl
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^3: supertree construction in perl
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 09, 2012 at 15:45 UTC | |
Sorry, but as I said, I find the "algorithm description" in the paper you cited totally incomprehensible. It could be an alchemist's recipe or Archimedes' exclamation when stubbed his toe getting out of the bath for all the sense I can make of it. Constructed to impress rather than convey information. Further, I personally think that (much of) the literature on the subject is wrong, but I haven't reached the point of proof yet. I did come across this description of Aho's algorithm which at a cursory glance seems to be infinitely clearer: The following procedure is an implementation of the algorithm presented by Aho et al. (1981) with modifications for dealing with incompatibilities. I haven't pursued it because I'd rather finish or abandon my own experiments before I get familiar with someone else's method; but maybe it will help you to bring your code together. Good luck. 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.
| [reply] |
by zing (Beadle) on Oct 20, 2012 at 17:11 UTC | |
| [reply] |
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) 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: 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.
| [reply] |
by zing (Beadle) on Oct 21, 2012 at 08:19 UTC |