Perfect information isn't true, you don't exactly know the opponents next move. This broadens the search tree exponentially. Generally, with many hard problems, the size of the problem is a problem, when memory is limited.
The irony is, germany was controlled by the allies then, including the US, the ones whose population you just called ignorant, that watches movies about prostitutes' escapedes or war glorification.
I was heavily downvoted for snarky and spiteful comments and ultimately hellbanned as I tryed to pack up my cynicism in elaborate arguments. The downvote privileged are pretty vigorous about protecting their privilege.
So, in the long run they can train new folks with some of the brain that is still left. To be honest, they didn't exactly strike me with prolific creativity, rather their business enterpreneurship was working and they still profit from that.
It's good but average engineering, at average, moving slow but steady.
So, they can train new folks with some of the brain that is still left. To be honest, they didn't exactly strike me with prolific creativity, rather their business enterpreneurship was working and they still profit from that. It's good but average engineering, at average, moving slow but steady. If innovation happens elsewhere, they just copy it. So they try to in
In the decimal system it is just as easy to associate 5+5=10.
5xN is easier to remember than 16xN on account of 5 being the smaller number.
2^n is logarithmic whereas 5*n is linear. Arguably, logarithms are not too complicated, even if linear seems to be a degree easier, seeing that the decimal system is also logarithmic as that's a denser representation.
edit: how to enter an aterisk as the multiplication operator sign
> 5xN is easier to remember than 16xN on account of 5 being the smaller number.
By that logic, shouldn't it be easier to remember 7 * n than 10 * n, because 7 is the smaller number?
> 2^n is logarithmic
Also, as Jtsummers (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10973381) points out, the function `n \mapsto 2^n` is exponential: its growth is significantly faster, not significantly slower, than exponential.
I didn't talk about growth, i was specifically thinking about a comment that called our number system logarithmic and it stands to reason, if you wan't to find x in 10^x=y, unless you do calculus in your head at the age of five, you may as well look at a grap of the exponential progression. now that's two incoherent arguments, but the latter should point out that it doesn't really matter which way, and the first alludes that there is something more basic to the logarithm, something easier to capture. If I look at the grid pattern in logarithmic plots, it's not a runaway progression but a nice repetition where the zeros in the end of the numbers at each 10^n interval behave like the unary number system, which is the basic positional system and arguably easier even then binary.
Re edit: Put a space between the * and the characters.
5 * N
versus
5*N
Pairs of asterisks adjacent to non-space characters become markers indicating italicized text.
5*N is easier to remember than 16*N
5N is easier to remember than 16N
Versus
5 * N is easier to remember than 16 * N
5 * N is easier to remember than 16 * N
And I think the word you want is exponential, not logarithmic. Related to each other, since exponential expressions become linear on a logarithmic scale, but exponential describes the growth of 2^n better.
I'm not sure if those are the meassures that guide the decision: Searching in linked lists is suboptimal (was it O(n)?), as is their cache performance. Sure, with small lists, that doesn;t matter, but how small is small enough?
Having been mildly disappointed by the simplicity of monoids, after intimidation from the complexity in maths, i expect that something like an adjunction is something already known to a commoner in any case, just that the vocabulary, particaularies and relations to the concept in question are not always obvious.
Monoids really are simple things. Monads are a bit less so, but they're still fairly simple objects (as evidenced by the fact that they have a short description, "monoids in the category of endofunctors", even if most people don't know what that means).
Adjunctions turn up all over maths, but I've been trying for a while to come up with an example which programmers (as opposed to mathematicians) would quickly understand. Broadly speaking, they represent "the leanest way to add a particular structure to something", but of course that's pretty useless for understanding them!
