User talk:Glrx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Welcome!

Hello, Glrx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RayTalk 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Perfect hash function: removed link[edit]

You have removed a link to the library I wrote. I wonder what the rules are for adding such links (when would it be OK to add a link). ThomasMueller (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Editors with a conflict of interest need to be circumspect about adding their own work.
The link I removed was a duplicate; the GitHub library was cited as a reference.
I'm not sure, but it may be appropriate to revert the modified bit per key claim and restore the earlier value. The qualifier about given enough time makes me queasy. See also WP:RS. Personal websites are not reliable sources. I'd prefer a secondary source that states the claim; I'll accept a refereed journal.
Glrx (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Conflict of interest: I see, and kind of agree. However, I believe most (if not all) other links were added anonymously. If you want to remove the other link feel free (there is no published paper yet). Once a paper is there I guess adding a link is appropriate.
"Given enough time": this is in the "Hash, displace, and compress" paper, Conclusions (page 11): "... the CHD algorithm can be tuned ... to obtain more compact functions. ... it has the ability,..., to approximate the information theoretic lower bound...". Also, Rasmus Pagh (who did a major edit of this page and is a subject matter expert) told me by email that "it is well known that one can approach 1.44… bits/key arbitrarily given enough time". So I think it makes sense to keep this information. ThomasMueller (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
That was a problem I had with a quick scan of the paper. There seemed to be tests that showed low bits per key, but there was not a definitive statement of bpk. If I'd seen one, then I would have reverted. WP does not want editors reading papers and then drawing some conclusion. See WP:OR. WP wants statements that can be verified. Email communications are worse than personal websites. I don't know the material. It would be good to state an information theoretic lower bound if there is one, but such statements can be dangerous if there are huge costs to get there. Glrx (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The paper doesn't have a definitive statement of bits per key for the MPHF, that' true. But in the conclusion (which is also part of the paper, and is reviewed as well), it says that the algorithm can approximate the theoretical lower bound. The paper also shows that it is possible, with todays computers, to easily reach 2.1 bits per key, and that it is getting more and more expensive to get lower bits per key. I understand emails are not valid references of course. By the way, the information theoretic lower bound is around 1.44 (that is already on Wikipedia, with a reference, I can add other references if needed). ThomasMueller (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maglioladitis 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maglioladitis 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 6, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maglioladitis 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please trim your evidence, which is currently three times the 500-word limit. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 23:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Having received no request for a raise in the word limit and having seen no progress in reducing the length, I have now trimmed your evidence to 500 words. [1]. Ks0stm (TCGE)  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  00:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

New Zealand TW-17.svg Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Magioladitis evidence phase closing soon[edit]

It's scheduled to close in a few hours. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to let you know[edit]

RE: Voynich manuscript edit

Just to let you know, "CreateSpace" is a branch of Amazon that allows people to self-publish their own works.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I googled it and saw "self-publish", so I figured most CS material would be similar to a blog and not WP:RS. I did not know it was Amazon, but that makes sense because the book was for sale there. Glrx (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, Amazon made the ultimate "Poor Man's Vanity Press"--Mr Fink (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Field-programmable gate array[edit]

RE: diff at Field-programmable gate array

Why did you remove my addition of open-source section to the article, there wasn't an explanation.

Just wondering why?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Back ache (talkcontribs) 12:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The addition has several problems. My edit comment of "DUE?" is a reference to WP:DUE. The statement "An opensource set of tool's has recently appeared to address the previously closed nature of the chips and the software to program them" just implies the existence of such tools; it does not show that the tools are reasonable or accepted. Most FPGA manufacturers are providing free tools for the their (proprietary) products. Furthermore, Wikipedia wants WP:SECONDARY sources that provide independent assessments. Moreover, Wikipedia wants reliable sources; YouTube is not a reliable source. On another front, WP's mission does not include being a how-to-guide. Glrx (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Voynich wiki[edit]

re: my revert at Talk:Voynich manuscript

I mentioned the wiki primarily to indicate an alternative place for the discussions (as 'WP is not a forum') and Original Research etc that the VM tends to attract (like some other topics). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)