schr0dinger

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by schr0dinger 6y ago

   This has nothing whatsoever to do with science. You made no hypothesis rather based the “postulate” off the lower bound of your observation over a very small sample set. Imagine this, write a C program where you write x million functions wh
2. 2.▲
   by schr0dinger 6y ago

   Well minor including the switch to use of so called “quantitative type theory” where you can include use counts for variables that inform the compiler how long variables will stick around. Also the compiler switch to Chez Scheme yields a pr
3. 3.▲
   Proof Of Concept 40 TB/s(nature.com)

   2 points by schr0dinger 6y ago|0 comments
4. 4.▲
   by schr0dinger 6y ago

   This allows hash tables to have expected insertion and search times of O(1) as well which is as far as I’m aware the major motivation for it. Also the set of functions can be huge and the hash functions in the universe is infinite following
5. 5.▲
   by schr0dinger 6y ago

   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_hashing
6. 6.▲
   by schr0dinger 6y ago

   A universal set of hash functions is a set of hash functions such that randomly choosing any hash function from the set guarantees an upper bound on the number of collisions regardless of which keys from the universe are input to it (which
7. 7.▲
   by schr0dinger 6y ago

   How would Graham’s number compare to, say, Aleph Null? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number