5 ms·

I think this sample exemplifies what ADM is quite good at: "Why is sorting worth so much attention? There are several reasons: • Sorting is the basic building

I think this sample exemplifies what ADM is quite good at: "Why is sorting worth so much attention? There are several reasons: • Sorting is the basic building block that many other algorithms are built around. By understanding sorting, we obtain an amazing amount of power to solve other problems. • Most of the interesting ideas used in the design of algorithms appear in the context of sorting, such as divide-and-conquer, data structures, and randomized algorithms. • Computers have historically spent more time sorting than doing anything else. A quarter of all mainframe cycles were spent sorting data [Knu98]. Sorting remains the most ubiquitous combinatorial algorithm problem in practice. • Sorting is the most thoroughly studied problem in computer science. Literally dozens of different algorithms are known, most of which possess some particular advantage over all other algorithms in certain situations. In this chapter, we will discuss sorting, stressing how sorting can be applied to solving other problems. In this sense, sorting behaves more like a data structure than a problem in its own right. We then give detailed presentations of several fundamental algorithms: heapsort, mergesort, quicksort, and distribution sort as examples of important algorithm design paradigms." This kind of information on context is much more difficult to find than proofs. The idea that sorting algorithms are good, stripped down exemplars of general purpose algorithm concepts is something I've never heard pointed out elsewhere—and the text is full of these golden, context-related insights. Once you have a firm grasp of the principles involved, then CLRS or google become useful references (though, tbh, it's extraordinarily rare I find myself reaching for CLRS over google). I just tested and it took me less than 15 seconds to find a proof for the running time of mergesort, which is basically all that CLRS offers over ADM.

dxbydt 12y ago
>This kind of information on context is much more difficult to find Yes, but its also highly subjective & imho useless information. Emanuel Derman often writes about this problem, and it is something I have observed very frequently at workplaces - this present generation seems to be obsessed with meta-knowledge rather than actual knowledge. He points out its better to know a few things but know them indepth, rather than have an ability to talk about everything without actually knowing what those things really are. When I ask people to implement ordinary least squares from scratch, literally like 5% of the people interviewed manage to do that, & they are very, very good. The remaining 95% "know about ols" but don't "know ols" ie. they will give me lots of mumbo jumbo about how ols is the building block of statistics & how it is affected by outliers & so forth - but can't implement one to save their lives. When it comes to sorting, I vastly prefer somebody who can implement atleast one of O(n) ( postman sort), O(n^2) ( bubblesort) or O(nlogn) ( mergesort, several others ) rather than somebody who can give me all this context & then say I will google the actual algorithm. CLRS teaches you how things actually work. ADM is imho good for acing interviews conducted by managerial types (PMs/EMs) who want you to namedrop & give lots of context & color without actually doing any real work.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- westoncb 12y ago
  I can understand your complaint here, and I agree with you that people can easily go too far in the direction of 'when to implement' versus 'how to implement'—but I'm pretty sure the key is (1) Both are required, (2) it makes more sense for one of these things to precede the other. However, I think that you’re also conflating two approaches to learning ‘context.’ One gives people an elaborate index for finding implementations when required, so that they become capable ‘solution googlers.’ This is unquestionably an inadequate approach to education. However, there is another approach to context which emphasizes principles. ‘Principles’ can be a vague word itself, but I’ll try to be more precise about it: you have understood something ‘by principles’ when you first understood a more general structure, then, in order to learn the more particular thing, you understood which parameters must be supplied to the more general structure in order to get the more particular one. E.g., you learn principles of programming languages first, then can understand new languages as parameterizations of your prior, more general knowledge. I think the context material in ADM serves as a nice guide for acquiring principles in this sense. The bit I quoted is largely significant because of their emphasis on principles. It’s interesting that you think ADM would be the book for faking an interview. I have the exact opposite stance. If I wanted to impress a typical software person (e.g. a yet to be determined interviewer), I’d learn a lot of the details from CLRS, rather than going for ADM.
- westoncb 12y ago
  Also, in attempt to be more objective about this divide, I've found it useful to note that there's a general tendency in intellectuals to be in one camp or the other: unifier or multiplier. I've seen this issue taken up by William James, talking about 'rationalists and empiricists' and by Freeman Dyson in an essay about 'Manchester and Athens'. At the highest heights of intellectual accomplishment, you find people who revel in particulars, and others who love only principles, each typically having an amount of disdain for the other approach. Both are necessary, though.
- barrkel 12y ago
  I think it's better to know about the existence of a problem, that it has solutions, and that the solutions can be applied to similar problems, than it is to know any given problem and solution in depth. When you have a breadth of knowledge, you know where to look to start your implementation - or better yet, use someone else's implementation, until it's not good enough, which may never happen. The risk with knowing a few things well is that you may be ignorant of of the existence of similar problems and know that they already have good solutions. Meta-knowledge, as you put it, is generally more likely to be useful than specific knowledge, unless you have specific knowledge about a lot of things - which is unlikely unless you've got a lot of experience.
j2kun 12y ago
Interestingly enough, we still don't know a lot about sorting :)

dxbydt 12y ago

>This kind of information on context is much more difficult to find Yes, but its also highly subjective & imho useless information. Emanuel Derman often writes about this problem, and it is something I have observed very frequently at workplaces - this present generation seems to be obsessed with meta-knowledge rather than actual knowledge. He points out its better to know a few things but know them indepth, rather than have an ability to talk about everything without actually knowing what those things really are. When I ask people to implement ordinary least squares from scratch, literally like 5% of the people interviewed manage to do that, & they are very, very good. The remaining 95% "know about ols" but don't "know ols" ie. they will give me lots of mumbo jumbo about how ols is the building block of statistics & how it is affected by outliers & so forth - but can't implement one to save their lives. When it comes to sorting, I vastly prefer somebody who can implement atleast one of O(n) ( postman sort), O(n^2) ( bubblesort) or O(nlogn) ( mergesort, several others ) rather than somebody who can give me all this context & then say I will google the actual algorithm. CLRS teaches you how things actually work. ADM is imho good for acing interviews conducted by managerial types (PMs/EMs) who want you to namedrop & give lots of context & color without actually doing any real work.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
westoncb 12y ago
I can understand your complaint here, and I agree with you that people can easily go too far in the direction of 'when to implement' versus 'how to implement'—but I'm pretty sure the key is (1) Both are required, (2) it makes more sense for one of these things to precede the other. However, I think that you’re also conflating two approaches to learning ‘context.’ One gives people an elaborate index for finding implementations when required, so that they become capable ‘solution googlers.’ This is unquestionably an inadequate approach to education. However, there is another approach to context which emphasizes principles. ‘Principles’ can be a vague word itself, but I’ll try to be more precise about it: you have understood something ‘by principles’ when you first understood a more general structure, then, in order to learn the more particular thing, you understood which parameters must be supplied to the more general structure in order to get the more particular one. E.g., you learn principles of programming languages first, then can understand new languages as parameterizations of your prior, more general knowledge. I think the context material in ADM serves as a nice guide for acquiring principles in this sense. The bit I quoted is largely significant because of their emphasis on principles. It’s interesting that you think ADM would be the book for faking an interview. I have the exact opposite stance. If I wanted to impress a typical software person (e.g. a yet to be determined interviewer), I’d learn a lot of the details from CLRS, rather than going for ADM.
westoncb 12y ago
Also, in attempt to be more objective about this divide, I've found it useful to note that there's a general tendency in intellectuals to be in one camp or the other: unifier or multiplier. I've seen this issue taken up by William James, talking about 'rationalists and empiricists' and by Freeman Dyson in an essay about 'Manchester and Athens'. At the highest heights of intellectual accomplishment, you find people who revel in particulars, and others who love only principles, each typically having an amount of disdain for the other approach. Both are necessary, though.
barrkel 12y ago
I think it's better to know about the existence of a problem, that it has solutions, and that the solutions can be applied to similar problems, than it is to know any given problem and solution in depth. When you have a breadth of knowledge, you know where to look to start your implementation - or better yet, use someone else's implementation, until it's not good enough, which may never happen. The risk with knowing a few things well is that you may be ignorant of of the existence of similar problems and know that they already have good solutions. Meta-knowledge, as you put it, is generally more likely to be useful than specific knowledge, unless you have specific knowledge about a lot of things - which is unlikely unless you've got a lot of experience.

j2kun 12y ago

Interestingly enough, we still don't know a lot about sorting :)