4 ms·

Very interesting, but ... another paper without code.

kzrdude 4y ago
I'm a layman, but this seems to be a very approachable presentation of a paper. Section titles are approachable and it has figures and graphics with geometric ideas.
- psychphysic 4y ago
  And equation 12 shows an expansion of the formula given in eq11.
zython 4y ago
The code is trivial and left as an exercise to the reader. /s
- quchen 4y ago
  This, but unironically. Their formula (11) involves basics (sums and products), the only nontrivial part would be the partial partitions, and for that the first paragraph of chapter 2 explains how to get it from ordinary partitions, which is a standard function.
- ur-whale 4y ago
  > The code is trivial and left as an exercise to the reader. /s Yeah, the margin was probably not wide enough.
zuzatm 4y ago
I'd argue that the results of this paper are not meant to be implemented, hence no code required.
beyondCritics 4y ago
It's about higher math dude.
- ur-whale 4y ago
  > It's about higher math dude. It's about a formula (another word for algorithm) for computing the determinant, it's not like they shat a new theorem in category theory. And however higher-mathy that may be, a link to a chunk of python code implementing the formula certainly would not have been detrimental to the paper. Unless of course all of the other higher math folks would look down upon a despicable math researcher that would dare spoil a perfectly honorable higher math research paper by adding disgustingly usable code to it. Think of the insult! People could even get down to running the code just to check that the formula actually works ! Ivory tower much ?
  - kmill 4y ago
    Are you familiar with the different stages of research? This is "basic research" -- they found a new determinant formula and analyzed it. Others can pick up their work and continue, for example creating implementations and comparing their runtimes in practice. I think including a determinant implementation would be detrimental if it were not accompanied by this additional analysis, since people might use this implementation as the standard implementation, but very likely in practice there will be many implementation tricks to get it to work competitively. They're certainly not above writing code. You seem to have missed the appendix, where they wrote some to prove that their bound on the tensor rank of 4x4 determinants over GF2 is exactly 12. https://gitlab.com/apgoucher/det4f2 https://gitlab.com/apgoucher/det4f2 Also, a formula is not an algorithm. You can oftentimes extract an algorithm from a formula, but the value of a formula in pure math is to be able to write something in a different way. Formulas reveal structure that (hopefully) can be exploited when solving other problems. > People could even get down to running the code just to check that the formula actually works ! This is an interesting perspective, but you have to take into account that papers are written for some audience in mind -- this one is written for combinatorialists (hence the math.CO designation on the arXiv). It's not too hard of an exercise to plug this formula into Mathematica for this audience. But also, this audience would rather see a proof than computational evidence.
    - ur-whale 4y ago
vore 4y ago
The formula is literally in equation 11.

I'm a layman, but this seems to be a very approachable presentation of a paper. Section titles are approachable and it has figures and graphics with geometric ideas.

psychphysic 4y ago
And equation 12 shows an expansion of the formula given in eq11.

zython 4y ago

The code is trivial and left as an exercise to the reader. /s

quchen 4y ago
This, but unironically. Their formula (11) involves basics (sums and products), the only nontrivial part would be the partial partitions, and for that the first paragraph of chapter 2 explains how to get it from ordinary partitions, which is a standard function.
ur-whale 4y ago
> The code is trivial and left as an exercise to the reader. /s Yeah, the margin was probably not wide enough.

zuzatm 4y ago

I'd argue that the results of this paper are not meant to be implemented, hence no code required.

beyondCritics 4y ago

It's about higher math dude.

ur-whale 4y ago
> It's about higher math dude. It's about a formula (another word for algorithm) for computing the determinant, it's not like they shat a new theorem in category theory. And however higher-mathy that may be, a link to a chunk of python code implementing the formula certainly would not have been detrimental to the paper. Unless of course all of the other higher math folks would look down upon a despicable math researcher that would dare spoil a perfectly honorable higher math research paper by adding disgustingly usable code to it. Think of the insult! People could even get down to running the code just to check that the formula actually works ! Ivory tower much ?
- kmill 4y ago
  Are you familiar with the different stages of research? This is "basic research" -- they found a new determinant formula and analyzed it. Others can pick up their work and continue, for example creating implementations and comparing their runtimes in practice. I think including a determinant implementation would be detrimental if it were not accompanied by this additional analysis, since people might use this implementation as the standard implementation, but very likely in practice there will be many implementation tricks to get it to work competitively. They're certainly not above writing code. You seem to have missed the appendix, where they wrote some to prove that their bound on the tensor rank of 4x4 determinants over GF2 is exactly 12. https://gitlab.com/apgoucher/det4f2 https://gitlab.com/apgoucher/det4f2 Also, a formula is not an algorithm. You can oftentimes extract an algorithm from a formula, but the value of a formula in pure math is to be able to write something in a different way. Formulas reveal structure that (hopefully) can be exploited when solving other problems. > People could even get down to running the code just to check that the formula actually works ! This is an interesting perspective, but you have to take into account that papers are written for some audience in mind -- this one is written for combinatorialists (hence the math.CO designation on the arXiv). It's not too hard of an exercise to plug this formula into Mathematica for this audience. But also, this audience would rather see a proof than computational evidence.
  - ur-whale 4y ago

vore 4y ago

The formula is literally in equation 11.