3 ms·
Fine, I edited "most" in my previous comment to "many". There are still plenty of examples (even on the first page) where the "runtime" is used to mean algorith
by eigenket 3y ago
Fine, I edited "most" in my previous comment to "many". There are still plenty of examples (even on the first page) where the "runtime" is used to mean algorithmic complexity
https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.14645 https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.14645
https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.13770 https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.13770
https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12253 https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12253
https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12205 https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12205
https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10856 https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10856
- WhitneyLand 3y agoI’ll respond to what I think are the real points: Precision doesn’t matter in this case? I disagree. It was a dick move and pretentious to call it out? Maybe so, it was not my intent and I apologize if it was the case.
- eigenket 3y agoMy point is that I am a researcher (in quantum information theory) and I've published a couple of papers on quantum computing which talk about algorithmic complexity. In once case I've been told to by an editor to change run time to runtime, and in another case I've been told (by an editor at a different journal) to change run-time to run time. There isn't a fixed consistent usage, even in the academic literature. More importantly though it doesn't matter which you use, as long as its obvious what you're talking about.
- bdhcuidbebe 3y agoSince you think it was a dick move, then maybe consider that. Language matters when you want to get across. (and so does context).
- hyperluz 3y agoSo, many researchers don't use terms with due care. And many article are rejected by Nature.
- eigenket 3y agoI don't really get the love for Nature but here is an example that uses "runtime" in this sense in Nature Computational Science https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-023-00589-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-023-00589-x Here is one in Nature Physics https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-023-02325-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-023-02325-8 Here is one in Nature Precedings https://www.nature.com/articles/npre.2011.5593.1 https://www.nature.com/articles/npre.2011.5593.1 And here is one in Nature Communications https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44008-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44008-1 It isn't a matter of a lack of due care - it just really really doesn't matter which term you use as long as your meaning is clear.
- hyperluz 3y agoTIL Nature is failing to help the world to have more clear scientific communication. What a shame!
- aleph_minus_one 3y ago> So, many researchers don't use terms with due care. And many article are rejected by Nature. The reason is much simpler: many (most) researchers are not native English speakers. For example, my doctoral advisor (who knows English well, but is not a native speaker) could hardly help me with questions concerning more subtle aspects of English terms used in the research area. He told me that hardly anybody cares. Even more: when you look for examples, you always have to consider the situation that a word is used wrongly because the author who comes from an arbitrary country does not know better. Even more: sometimes I do ask native English speakers about subtle aspects of the English language. My impression from this is: while it is not uncommon among native German speakers to deeply analyze German words, various native English speakers independently told me that doing such an analysis "is not how the English language works" (or how native English speakers think about their language).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 3y ago