4 ms·
Pardon the bald appeal to authority, but your assertion reminds me of a Richard Hamming quote: """ As we say, the volume is almost all on the surface. Even in
by riwsky 11y ago
Pardon the bald appeal to authority, but your assertion reminds me of a Richard Hamming quote:
"""
As we say, the volume is almost all on the surface. Even in 3 dimensions the unit sphere has 7/8-ths of its volume within 1/2 of the surface. In n-dimensions there is 1–(1/2^n) within 1/2 of the radius from the surface.
This has importance in design; it means almost surely the optimal design will be on the surface and will not be inside as you might think from taking the calculus and doing optimizations in that course. The calculus methods are usually inappropriate for finding the optimum in high dimensional spaces. This is not strange at all; generally speaking the best design is pushing one or more of the parameters to their extreme—obviously you are on the surface of the feasible region of design!
"""
- Gibbon1 11y agoI'm reminded of a friends bitch about his company hiring a couple of ex-bell labs video compression guys to develop video codecs. Said they spent a year and came up with a great codec. Decode speed was twice as fast as anything else. Great!! Encoding speed was about a 1000 times slower. So encoding 5 minutes of video would take 3.5 days. And thus totally unusable. The issue is design axis's are entangled. And also figures of merit are nonlinear. Twice as whatever doesn't mean twice as good.