tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post5371257979846647327..comments2024-03-10T05:26:42.148-04:00Comments on My Biased Coin: Semantic Communication, Madhu SudanMichael Mitzenmacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06738274256402616703noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-4401919822696091862009-10-29T04:10:33.953-04:002009-10-29T04:10:33.953-04:00Sounds similar to the UniPlug work we did at the M...Sounds similar to the UniPlug work we did at the Media Lab:<br />http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/41756Durgahttp://www.dpsmiles.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-88072899176967976312009-10-07T13:23:43.448-04:002009-10-07T13:23:43.448-04:00Perhaps this theory can be applied to teaching stu...Perhaps this theory can be applied to teaching students (math?) who seem to speak a completely different language sometimes. :) (I just read a huge thread where a colleague failed, so far, to convince a student that "x is at most y" means x≤y.)rgrighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02991214367108471744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-7344074654558867112009-10-03T16:35:09.223-04:002009-10-03T16:35:09.223-04:00If you can't cite your sources, it wouldn'...<i>If you can't cite your sources, it wouldn't even be allowed in a Wikipedia article. I am not sure why you think scientific articles should have even lower standards.</i><br /><br />What were we saying about people not knowing how to evaluate applicability?<br /><br />By that measure Google's page ranking is not applicable since at the time of discovery it hadn't been implemented by a company (google didn't even exist). <br /><br />And yes, page ranking was rejected from SIGIR, though admittedly the paper wasn't very well written.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-55430126885513686752009-10-03T14:00:28.977-04:002009-10-03T14:00:28.977-04:00Anonymous 3: If you can't cite your sources, i...Anonymous 3: If you can't cite your sources, it wouldn't even be allowed in a Wikipedia article. I am not sure why you think scientific articles should have even lower standards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-34630065770693195912009-10-02T20:40:19.590-04:002009-10-02T20:40:19.590-04:00(It helps to be in a department where faculty outs...<i>(It helps to be in a department where faculty outside of theory are generally perfectly comfortable seeing PSPACE-completeness and reductions show up on slides -- is that usual, or are we spoiled here? [...])</i><br /><br />You're spoiled, and I'm jealous. <br /><br />Heard from a faculty colleague in a talk: "NP means non-polynomial, right?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-4408409652582589882009-10-02T17:02:02.063-04:002009-10-02T17:02:02.063-04:00and often the reviewer is a poor judge of (b) (is ...<i>and often the reviewer is a poor judge of (b) (is it practical) anyway</i><br /><br />A while back I wrote a couple of papers describing algorithms in use in practice. The usage was carefully described in the introduction but the names of the companies using them could not be cited for confidential reasons. One paper was rejected because it had "no applications", the other because "the author does not know how this is done in industry".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-29366674513055498072009-10-02T13:48:53.559-04:002009-10-02T13:48:53.559-04:00My sense is also that algorithms and data structur...My sense is also that algorithms and data structures work is judged much more harshly by the theory community than lower bounds or complexity work. For algorithms work, the question often asked by the typical reviewer (who is a pure theoretician) is : (a) does it have hard/interesting math and (b) is it practical. Unfortunately, an idea that satisfies (a) often takes a long time to make its way to (b) (and often the reviewer is a poor judge of (b) anyway), so the paper often gets rejected. <br /><br />However for complexity/lower bounds work, there is absolutely no question of (b), and people are happy to accept a paper so long as it passes (a).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-51294837246929458302009-10-02T12:49:57.188-04:002009-10-02T12:49:57.188-04:00Sounds like a case of a theorist poorly choosing w...Sounds like a case of a theorist poorly choosing which setting his paper pretends to apply to in the intro. "Suppose an alien comes down to earth"? No! "The Internet has seen a remarkable explosion of growth over the past two decades"? Yes!<br /><br />....at least it wasn't "VLSI design is an important problem in computer engineering".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com