2 ms·

While semantic debates are undoubtedly a waste of time when we use an ever evolving descriptive language like English, I couldn't help myself. Most dictionaries

While semantic debates are undoubtedly a waste of time when we use an ever evolving descriptive language like English, I couldn't help myself. Most dictionaries appear to support OP's usage, and I would argue that it is very intuitive that an alorithm made up of smaller algorithms is still, itself, an algorithm. Google's algorithm for determining whether to ban USENET groups mathematically approximates the problem and computes a solution to that problem in a finite number of steps, frequently involving repetition. Even if it didn't fit those specific requirements, however, it would still qualify under the broader definition of "algorithm" in common usage. See Merriam-Webster's definition of algorithm: : a procedure for solving a mathematical problem (as of finding the greatest common divisor) in a finite number of steps that frequently involves repetition of an operation broadly : a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end "There are several search engines, with Google, Yahoo and Bing being the biggest players. Each search engine has its own proprietary computation (called an "algorithm") that ranks websites for each keyword or combination of keywords." — Julie Brinton "… sometimes you solve a problem by coming up with an algorithm of some kind. But sometimes you solve a problem in a very ad hoc sort of way." — William H. Huggins

cosmojg 5y ago
Well, now I'm feeling nostalgic. This little discourse brings back memories of the good old days on comp.lang.* and elsewhere on USENET and other ancient fora. ;)
Banana699 5y ago
At the risk of sounding like I would want to die on this hill (I am certainly annoyed, but anybody can use any word to mean anything they want as long as a certain number of other people agree. I think I understand how natural language works), but this statment > I would argue that it is very intuitive that an alorithm made up of smaller algorithms is still, itself, an algorithm is very unconvincing. Here's an "Algorithm" - compute the square root of 5 - for each number from 1 to n do 5 times : compute the square root of 5 times that number plus 19 - output the square root of 9 to the screen Are you willing to accept this sequence of steps as an algorithm? I am not. And this sequence is even more of an algorithm than Google's products, at least it guarantees termination, correctly solves every instance of a (extremely artifical and meaningless) problem, and is effectively calculable (Google's and Facebook systems frequently need humans to decide or amend decisions, and the decisions are often arbitary and value-based). Neither of these things is guaranteed for Google's "algorithms". >Most dictionaries appear to support OP's usage I never said that this confusion isn't popular or documented in dictionaries and literature everywhere, the exact opposite in fact. I said I am annoyed that it is popular. Programs and Algorithms are different, and the difference is as meaningful and useful as the difference between "Writings" and "Poems".

cosmojg 5y ago

Well, now I'm feeling nostalgic. This little discourse brings back memories of the good old days on comp.lang.* and elsewhere on USENET and other ancient fora. ;)

Banana699 5y ago

At the risk of sounding like I would want to die on this hill (I am certainly annoyed, but anybody can use any word to mean anything they want as long as a certain number of other people agree. I think I understand how natural language works), but this statment > I would argue that it is very intuitive that an alorithm made up of smaller algorithms is still, itself, an algorithm is very unconvincing. Here's an "Algorithm" - compute the square root of 5 - for each number from 1 to n do 5 times : compute the square root of 5 times that number plus 19 - output the square root of 9 to the screen Are you willing to accept this sequence of steps as an algorithm? I am not. And this sequence is even more of an algorithm than Google's products, at least it guarantees termination, correctly solves every instance of a (extremely artifical and meaningless) problem, and is effectively calculable (Google's and Facebook systems frequently need humans to decide or amend decisions, and the decisions are often arbitary and value-based). Neither of these things is guaranteed for Google's "algorithms". >Most dictionaries appear to support OP's usage I never said that this confusion isn't popular or documented in dictionaries and literature everywhere, the exact opposite in fact. I said I am annoyed that it is popular. Programs and Algorithms are different, and the difference is as meaningful and useful as the difference between "Writings" and "Poems".