4 ms·
It has not aged well for ascii characters, especially for texts like English where the letter “e” is abundant enough to make it likely that your average jump wo
by beagle3 6y ago
It has not aged well for ascii characters, especially for texts like English where the letter “e” is abundant enough to make it likely that your average jump would be 6, less than the 64-bit fetch.
It can still be used to find a substring of 100 64-bit values in a much longer 64-bit string, but ... it’s a problem I never encountered (and only encountered a 16-bit version of it once in my life). Then again, if you use 32-bit for each Unicode character and have a lot of emojis, it might still be somewhat competitive with brute force.
- lofi_lory 6y agoHarder to argue about character frequency in DNA/RNA sequences.
- pmiller2 6y agoNaively, I'd expect all letters to occur equally frequently. Do you know if this is the case?
- thamer 6y agoIt's not the case. There are consequences to the proportion of some nucleotides, the most well-known being the GC-content[1], or proportion in a sequence of bases being G or C (G pairs with C and A pairs with T). There are benefits to a higher GC-content, like the sequence being more stable. From this the obvious question would be why this matters, since you obviously can't replace an A-T pair with a G-C pair just to increase this proportion. Except that there are ways to do it… kind of. If you look at the codon table[2], you'll see that there are multiple ways to represent each protein encoded by a triplet of nucleotides. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GC-content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GC-content [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_and_RNA_codon_tables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_and_RNA_codon_tables
- lofi_lory 6y agoThanks for jumping in with way more info than I could provide. I love how the DNA language, much unlike spoke words, is in close relation to physical properties of the world. There really is some exciting magic in the interception of biology and computation.