Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science
|This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Computer science and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11|
|WikiProject Computer science||(Rated Project-class)|
|WikiProject Computer science was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 7 November 2011. If you wish to get involved with the Signpost, please visit the Newsroom.|
Quote_notation: overly optimisticEdit
The article on "Quote_notation", although sort of interesting, is overly optimistic on the usefulness of this notation for general computation with fractions. There is an obvious problem that the length of a quote notated fraction is linear in its denominator, often even close to it.
This optimism is already there in the original article.
For example, the suggestion is that subtraction of two quote notated number is "just subtract". Here a bad counterexample: To subtract 1/19 from 1/17 (giving 2/323), you compute 2941176470588235'3 - 894736842105263159'9, and after subtraction you get a number with a repeating part of 144 digits, ending in ...4334365325077'4
This is not easy by any stretch of the imagination. However, the notation is still an interesting thought experiment, so I would suggest not to remove it, but just make it a bit more realistic.
Problem with bulkloading a B-treeEdit
The B-tree article (version ) seems to have an interesting part in section #Initial construction, which is unsourced, incomplete and possibly original research. Please comment on appropriate way of resolving the issue at Talk:B-tree#Initial construction by bulkloading. --CiaPan (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of ACM Doctoral Dissertation AwardEdit
Hey all. Someone has nominated ACM Doctoral Dissertation Award for speedy deletion. Anyone here want to step in to the debate? I for one think ACM awards are significant in general, but I would appreciate hearing what you all have to say. Best BenKuykendall (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- For everyone's information, the issue of WP:Notability is still under discussion, but the WP:SPEEDY proposal (under A7) has been withdrawn; it's going through the long process while an editor is working to find references. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- With the wikilinks, you can see many of the winners/honorable mentions are notable (and many more need to be linked or added). I'm not trying to inherit to the award, but I think many gained notability from the award. I was wondering about how to improve the article. Should we always include the university's announcement of the award and/or third party mentions or just use the ACM list? Should we add the title of each thesis? StrayBolt (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Algorithms for generating uniform distributionsEdit
A common and well-studied problem is generating uniform random numbers mod n, i.e. a random number 0 ≤ x < n. I can't find mention of the common algorithms (
rand32() % n,
(uint64_t)rand32() * n >> 32, and the rejection techniques used to eliminate bias in the results).
- Am I blind and this is already in Wikipedia somewhere?
- Assuming not, where should it go? I'm not sure which is best among:
- I agree that these are popular techniques in practice to get a random number in [0...n] given the output of rand32 or a similar random function. However, what kind of encyclopedic content did you imagine we should have about them? To me, these just seem like code snippets, not notable algorithms. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- @BenKuykendall: Well, algorithms are encyclopedic content. Including ones to generate probability distributions like the alias method and ziggurat algorithm and the Box-Muller transform. Mostly I want to talk about the bias, how it varies depending on the input size, how it differs between the modulo and multiplication algorithms (the fact that the overrepresented numbers are all at the low end with the modulo algorithm biases the mean more than the multiplicative), and then ways to eliminate it.
- The actual inspiration was simpler: I came across Fast random shuffling and hadn't seen the algorithm there for debiasing the multiplicative technique. "I wonder if that's in Wikipedia?" And then I couldn't find any discussion of the entire subject, so I had to write more.
- For my own future reference: How much bias is introduced by the remainder technique?
- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- @220.127.116.11: Sorry if it sounded like I was trying to shut down your idea; I just want to make sure that other sources have talked about these sampling techniques. If you're still looking for sources, I recommend Knuth; he mentions the first technique in section 3.4.1 of TAOCP vol 2 and has some other citations. In terms of an appropriate article, I would lean towards adding a new section to Pseudo-random number sampling. Best, BenKuykendall (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Deletion of Academic genealogy of computer scientistsEdit
The deleted page was linked to on this project page and our to-do list. I removed the newly red links.
Any thoughts on how we can keep track of biographies of computer scientists without this page? I liked having the recently-changed link [[Special:RecentChangesLinked/Academic genealogy of computer scientists|Biographies of computer scientists]]. Any idea on how to maintain that functionality now?
(The Afd page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic genealogy of computer scientists) BenKuykendall (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
No "Computer History" category?Edit
New to the WikiProject Computer science. I noticed there is no Computer History category listed as part of this WikiProject scope? I guess there might be many interesting articles. Floppy Disk, ENIAC, IE6, etc.
- Wikipedia has a great deal of information about historic computation; much of it is organized in the Timeline of computing. BenKuykendall (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)