It's rather ironic that a discussion on what Christians believe would be based entirely on quotes from before the birth of Christ.
I think though that he did say something relevant to the question at hand: "The kingdom of God is inside you" (Luke 17:21) (ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν).
Sorting has a simple local optimum implies global optimum property. If a list is sorted than any (not necessarily sequential) sublist is sorted, and the converse. No such property applies to TSP.
I think that the best way to think about why some combinatorial problems are hard and others easy isn't to ask what makes a problem hard, but rather what makes a problem easy. Combinatorial problems seem to be hard by default. It takes some special simplifying property to make them easy.
That still seems like a major issue, because I and probably quite a few other people rely on the security page to decide when to look into upgrading.
I hope there is some rationale for why the security fixes in later releases were not serious enough to warrant an advisory on the security page, rather than it just being an oversight.
Yeah, that might work with a default keyboard layout but it doesn't work with a polytonic Greek layout. How would you type a lowercase alpha with an acute accent and a macron that way ?
Yeah, I was hoping to find some general information on how the Compose key is (or was) supposed to work. It's easy to find info on how to assign the Compose key to a particular key but I haven't found anything on how to actually use it to input more or less complex character codes.
Part of the problem may also be the difference between precomposed and non precomposed glyphs in Unicode, which I don't really understand, but it seems that if a keyboard layout is designed to use precomposed glyphs it may not allow you to further compose those with other code points.
For example there is a character that is a lowercase alpha with both an acute accent and a macron on top. With the right font it displays correctly (it probably wouldn't if I tried to copy-paste it here) but I don't know how to enter it on the keyboard. I suspect that's because there's no precomposed Unicode codepoint for it and my keyboard layout only seems to work with those.
The correct encoding for it is "GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH MACRON" (Unicode name) composed with "'".
Does anyone know of a good resource explaining how the compose key is supposed to work in general beyond the simple cases like those discussed in this article ?
I have an interest in some less spoken languages like Ancient Greek and Sanskrit and though there are specific keyboard layouts that mostly work there are still some less common combinations of diacritics used in writing Ancient Greek, for example, that don't seem to be covered.
Is there some way to use the compose key for entering general Unicode sequences for example, that would work for different applications ?
I'm a Linux user but I'd be interested in seeing a solid exposition on this topic even if it was for a different OS.
With the high level of self awareness that you've developed as evidenced by this post I would think you would be largely immune to falling into the kind of traps you're worried about. Maybe you should ask yourself why you don't trust your self enough to avoid such traps in the future ?
I think there is also a risk in becoming too skeptical or even cynical. I agree that there is much in most religions that is not useful and can sometimes by very harmful yet at the same time I think many religions contain elements of truth that are worth being open to.
My recommendation would be to approach all ideas with openness while maintaining a healthy amount of skepticism. Try to find the nuggets of gold without becoming burdened with tons of sand.
Not to diminish the achievements of these people but I suspect being in the right place and time has a lot to do with it. I suspect that for each of the names you cited there are a thousand others who were equally as technically skilled but who you've never heard of.
Wozniak, as I understand it, is best known for creating elegant and highly optimized designs for the Apple I and II circuitry. That may be a rare skill, but I don't think it's nearly as rare as the vast gulf in fame between him and the typical EE would lead one to believe. He became famous because he used those skills in the exact time and place where they mattered most, creating one of the first usable computers that was affordable for the middle class.
Torvalds didn't create Linux ex-nihilo. There was at the time an extensive literature on the design of Unix/Posix systems on which he could lean, as well as the example of Minix, which as I recall, is largely what inspired him to create his own clone of the Unix kernel. The reasons it became as successful as it did are numerous. Part of it has to do with that work being done at the time the Internet was enlarging the number of people who could access and contribute to open source projects. It also coincided with the GNU project being at a stage where it had already developed many of the user space tools for a fully open source Unix-like system but was having trouble getting a kernel off the ground. Note also that a key ingredient of his success beyond his technical competence was his ability to shepherd a world wide group of open source collaborators, keeping them all moving in the same general direction.
I don't know as much about Jeff Dean's history but I do know from experience that there's a lot more to being successful in a corporate context than just technical competence, or even, I suspect, genius. It's rare that one person can create an entire system on their own (though it does happen that one person's work can establish a framework for future contributions) and moving beyond the work of one individual requires a whole additional set of skills.
> there is no parallel track and parallel solvers are disqualified [1] from participating.
Maybe that's as much a cause as an effect. What's the incentive to create and improve parallel solvers if there's no place that evaluates and rewards your work ?
I'm stuck in the III.A "Main Idea" section where he says:
> Doing this enables us to represent each Di as a variable
sequence, but with all the negative literals being removed. See
Table I for illustration.
What justification does he have for throwing out negated variables ? If you do that the problem likely becomes trivial, but has nothing to do with the original problem.
There's one thing I'd like to get some clarification on. You said in an earlier comment:
> I am reducing to 2XSAT, which is a name for instances that are intersections of 2-SAT and XORSAT instances.
It seems to me that 2-SAT and XORSAT are distinct problems. I mean there is no problem instance that is simultaneously a 2-SAT problem and an XORSAT problem instance. So how can there be instances that are intersections of both ?