4 ms·
This is the worst description of the randomness issue I have ever read. In trying to make itself accessible to nontechnical people, it manages to miss or missta
by lutusp 13y ago
This is the worst description of the randomness issue I have ever read. In trying to make itself accessible to nontechnical people, it manages to miss or misstate every key point about randomness and its uses. It also doesn't understand the meaning or purpose of the function being described.
In the name of public accessibility, it's a perfect wash.
Guideline: if an article about random generating functions doesn't include the word "entropy" in the first 1000 words, it's not worth reading.
- nhaehnle 13y agoGuideline: if an article about random generating functions doesn't include the word "entropy" in the first 1000 words, it's not worth reading. I don't feel like that applies to the field "covered" by this particular article, though. To give an example, one can write a useful and enlightening article about the usefulness of randomness for universal hashing without ever using the word "entropy". And it seems that hash functions is what this article is trying to be about. The article is a complete train wreck, but a lack of the word "entropy" is not the cause.
- lutusp 13y agoI would agree, except for the fact that the article claims the described function produces a high degree of randomness -- "the most random function ever" -- which makes entropy an issue. If for no other reason, it would reveal the author's familiarity with the field's terminology. Otherwise we're entitled to assume that the hyperbolic claims have no basis (which I happen to believe is the case). I agree that the article ends up discussing hashing in a roundabout way, and randomness seems to have been dropped as a topic, but the title cries out for vindication.
- zem 13y agothe article itself was pretty rubbish, but i upvoted it anyway because it let me know about the new hash function and gave me terms to search for.