sold

10 ms·

61.
by sold 14y ago
I don't think it's "leaked" - it's available at their official page http://www.valvesoftware.com/jobs/
62.
by sold 14y ago
You can change appV fn x = atomically $ readTVar x >>= writeTVar x . fn to appV fn x = atomically $ modifyTVar x fn The function getValue need not be in IO monad. You can simplify it using fromMaybe in Data.Maybe.
63.
by sold 14y ago
EFF
64.
by sold 14y ago
I think you are missing the point. OP presented a linear time algorithm. You did not. The point of algorithms is solving problems where the input can change - here it's n, the size of the board. Your solution, as stated, works only for a
65.
by sold 14y ago
Dailymail is rather not a reputable source.
66.
by sold 14y ago
It's different. It's like you were listening to one music genre all your life and there's suddenly something new. If, say, Python was the only language with "for(each)" loops, you'd see many blog posts about that too. After I saw this, the
67.
by sold 14y ago
Retype. Somehow I feel more connected to the words when I type them by myself.
68.
by sold 14y ago
I am a non-native speaker. 95% of my contact with English is via a computer. There's the google effect: I press Ctrl+T, type tr(anslate.google.com) -> enter and type the word to get an instant translation. In the old times I had very re
69.
by sold 14y ago
reddit account: http://www.reddit.com/user/AaronSw
70.
by sold 14y ago
Each hat is independently red-blue 50/50.
71.
by sold 14y ago
Indeed, this is the solution. (One can also note that for for the original puzzle of two prisoners, guessing parity reduces to checking whether their hats are the same or different.)
72.
by sold 14y ago
Conversely, they can use a negation of their result. In this case they win given TH and HT and lose given TT and HH.
73.
by sold 14y ago
Here is a bit harder version of the puzzle, with 100 players instead of 2. 100 prisoners are given either a blue or a red hat, at random. Each prisoner is told colors of every hat except their own, and has to make a guess about his hat with
74.
by sold 14y ago
A counterpoint - The Relativity of Wrong, famous essay by Asimov. http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
75.
by sold 14y ago
On a higher level, there's Typeclassopedia http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Typeclassopedia .
76.
by sold 14y ago
> For reference: P <= BPP <= NP No, BPP is not known to be in NP. It is known to be in Sigma_2 and Pi_2.
77.
by sold 14y ago
No. P/poly is uncountable (contains every unary language) and NP, NEXP, R etc. are countable.
78.
by sold 14y ago
A tweet by The Onion: [In Focus] Google Shuts Down Gmail To Show Its Immense Power http://onion.com/UxyLs8
79.
by sold 14y ago
I don't consider Godel's theorem to be philosophy. Its status is similar to Cantor's theorem stating that reals are uncountable. Surely is inspired by philosophy and has philosophical consequences, but it is a part of mathematics. Trivia: G
80.
by sold 14y ago
Let's look at this question: What "truth" has mathematics itself produced from that search which is well-defined, non-trivial, and correct? Is it a loaded question? I think it isn't, and it has a lot of valid answers. Here are some recent o
81.
by sold 14y ago
You might try a functional language such as Haskell. It allows you to feel denotational semantics (common in mathematics), rather than operational semantics (common in imperative programming).
82.
by sold 14y ago
I'm afraid you are overstating the importance of alphabets. For example, try this: http://nedhardy.com/2012/04/25/learn-korean-in-15-minutes-ye... It's not really hard to learn alphabets. I feel the traditional notation achieves a good tr
83.
by sold 14y ago
As the post says, he gained access to both decrypted and encrypted version. Then (p XOR k) XOR p = k.
84.
by sold 14y ago
What do you mean by "transfinite proofs"? Let's look at Cantor's proof. It is: For every set A and function f : A -> P(A) there exists y in P(A) such that for all x, f(x) /= y. Proof: Define y = {a: a is not in f(a)}. If f(x) = y, then
85.
by sold 14y ago
In my opinion CLRS is too verbose and formal, unless you are a complete beginner. I don't know Sedgewick's book. I can recommend Kleinberg/Tardos, Dasgupta/Papadimitriou/Vazirani and Manber's "Introduction to algorithms: a creative approach
86.
by sold 14y ago
I have to strongly disagree with your first paragraph. Proofs by humans are finite objects, even if they speak about properties of infinite sets. This difference does not make proofs for computers more difficult than for humans. You can enc
87.
by sold 14y ago
Finite fields, essential to error-correcting codes, are based on properties of primes. This forms the basics of efficient data transfer, whether Internet, CDs or communication with spacecrafts. The book "Number Theory in Science and Communi
88.
by sold 14y ago
Whether ABC (or a similar conjecture) is proven has practically no cryptographic impact. This is because you can already write and execute algorithms (whose correctness depends on unsolved conjectures) without proving the conjectures. See
89.
by sold 14y ago
Direct link to the PDF: http://terrytao.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/blog-book.pdf Older collections: 1. http://terrytao.wordpress.com/books/whats-new-2007/ 2. http://terrytao.wordpress.com/books/poincares-legacies-cours... 3. http://
90.
Collection of Terence Tao's blog posts(terrytao.wordpress.com)
1 points by sold 14y ago|1 comments

More ›