2 ms·
The blog post was more than half padding. Good that the algorithm is so simple it's hard to write a full length blog post about it!
by resonious 2y ago
The blog post was more than half padding. Good that the algorithm is so simple it's hard to write a full length blog post about it!
- mpalmer 2y agoAnd yet the blog post still got it wrong: > Now you move forward with what the team calls Round 1. Keep going through Hamlet, adding new words as you go. If you come to a word that’s already on your list, flip a coin again. If it’s tails, delete the word; heads, and the word stays on the list. Proceed in this fashion until you have 100 words on the whiteboard. Then randomly delete about half again, based on the outcome of 100 coin tosses. That concludes Round 1. It's not just removals you test with N coin flips in Round N, it's whether to insert the new item at all.
- Paddy3118 2y agoI originally used Guttenburgh to get Hamlet and coded the Quanta method in Python and it did not work. I then moved to Algorithm 1 in the paper and got Copilot to (mis) convert it to Python and then spent time getting Copilot to admit its mistakes. The resultant code seemed to work but I found the Quanta suggested data of the words of hamlet to be uninspiring as for the calculated theta (max set size before halving), was often from ~50% of the total number of words in hamlet to often more than the words in hamlet. I've yet to investigate theta in more depth...
- gwillen 2y agoYeah, I noticed the same thing. Quanta's version of the algorithm is not only confusing, it's also wrong. I think the pseudocode in the paper is very hard to beat.