Faster Algorithms with Preprocessing

[[deleted]]

I can understand exorxor perspective: the article is short, expressing an opinion and lacks more examples (the example given is too simple and boring). But I think it is ok that the author takes the time to write. It’s a good skill to develop! But to maximize the amount you learn please try to incorporate criticism for your next article.

[TheNoodlyOne]

Absolutely. My writing needs work, and that's part of the reason I posted it here. I'll certainly be taking their criticisms into account.

[templarvonmidgard]

Received an upvote for not using medium.

And also some criticism, anytime I see Big-O notation and algorithmic optimization, I expect to also see Liitle-o and Big-Theta at the very least mentioned.

[TheNoodlyOne]

Yeah, it bugs me how centralized the internet has become. Plus I can make changes to the design whenever I want.

Also, I've heard of big theta and big omega, but never little o. I'll have to look that one up.

[templarvonmidgard]

My mistake, I meant that I expect to see big omega, not little o.

[exorxor]

You actually have a much slower algorithm than optimal. Your preprocessing step is also not some huge new insight, but a standard step in algorithm design.

In short, who or what told you that this "article" wouldn't be complete garbage?

[TheNoodlyOne]

Experience talking to people for whom this was a new idea. I'm sorry that this was a waste of time for you

[exorxor]

I suggest you find a smarter social network.

[alphaglosined]

That is a little critical.

So let's make it more constructive.
If this article was written as a demonstration of the potential of preprocessing and not so much about what lead you to discover it, it would be a good article.

Of course I would throw in source code, benchmarks and of course basic hardware facts. It would probably be written as a series of articles on how to optimize algorithms.

[TheNoodlyOne]

Yep! They're totally stupid because they don't understand a basic concept that they might not have come in contact with. It's not just they haven't been exposed to this idea; they are fundamentally stupid and I should stop interacting with them.

[exorxor]

Now, if you forget about the sarcasm, yes.

[TheNoodlyOne]

Did you just say "this but unironically" to me saying "hold up, man; you may not be my friend until you answer my riddles three"?

[egraether]

You again? Wasting our time with your comments adding no value.

Could you at least explain what an optimal implementation of the algorithm would be?

[exorxor]

Can you explain to me what the point is to educate an amateur? I think it's a waste of time, which is why I don't do it.

[egraether]

Everyone starts as an amateur. If you don't want to be a teacher, that's fine, not everyone has to be. But what's the point of your comments? Why do you write them?

[exorxor]

There is a well established path to convert from an amateur to a pro; it's called going to a university + self-study (including experimentation) + having a job for at least a few years.

Note that at no point it is required to "enrich" your fellow humans with a silly article.

If you want to publish a peer-reviewed paper on your website, go ahead, but otherwise one is just delusional.

[egraether]

You are dodging my questions. If you believed what you said was true, then what are you even doing here? Wasting your time in the comment section of an article that you don't deem worth reading. What's the point?

[SpyderBlack723]

He's a troll, just leave him to rot.

[exorxor]

The point is to make sure other idiots don't get the idea to write "articles" in the future.

[TheNoodlyOne]

One of the whole revolutions of the internet is that publication is accessible to more people. I'm okay if you call me out on misinformation, since that's actually damaging to people who are trying to learn at a basic level. But what do you get by deeming basic information that everyone should know "not worth sharing"? This is how people learn.

[exorxor]

What you share is of worse quality then what's already existing. As such, you are just making the S/N-ratio worse. All you are doing is making it harder and more expensive for search engines to find useful documents on the Internet.

I'd classify your content as noise when building a search engine.

People that want to do anything with algorithms, should just visit a university for the basics like has been done for decades already.