Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 5.150.92.130 - "update for release of fascicle 5" |
→too detailed: Reply |
||
| (28 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
}}
▲{{WikiProject Books|class = C
▲|listas = Art of the Computer Programing, The
▲{{WikiProject Computer science|class=C |importance=Top }}
==Misc==
The first paragraph mentions upcoming chapters 9 and 10 but gives them different topics then they are given in the table of contents. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/162.83.142.110|162.83.142.110]] ([[User talk:162.83.142.110#top|talk]]) 18:30, 7 May 2004 (UTC)</small>
:maybe on the site of Dr. Knuth you can find the correct information, as this is a wiki, your are allowed to change the wrong entry.
Line 99 ⟶ 97:
::Thanks for noticing the fix! :)
::<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<
::: I thought that was the case, but I was busy making a bunch of edits. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 14:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
::::Well done!
:::: :-)
::::Now [[optimization]] is redirected to [[optimization (mathematics)|mathematics|mathematical optimization]], which now lists a DAB page listing other uses of "optimization". <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<
::::: Thanks. "Optimization" linked to "program optimization" for I don't know how long (I didn't do it). I thought it was probably mathematical optimization, based on the previous sections, but recursion followed it, so I thought it might be program optimization. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 01:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Line 116 ⟶ 114:
The TAOCP page has DEK's checks, but it lacks Don's descriptions of problem ratings from 1..50. A friend (now deceased) who was introduced to Don before the friend died similarly rated his problem exercises using his version of the 1..50 scale. So Don inspired some small number of other authors to rate their problems as well. [[Special:Contributions/143.232.210.38|143.232.210.38]] ([[User talk:143.232.210.38|talk]]) 19:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC) P.S. Holder of 2 checks, 1 decimal, other other hex.
:The problems are rated with difficulty 0 to 50, 0 being "extremely easy", 50 requires "research", so for example Fermat's Last Theorem originally had a rating of 50 and now is at 45. [[Special:Contributions/194.207.86.26|194.207.86.26]] ([[User talk:194.207.86.26|talk]]) 07:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
:: A gentle reminder that the scale is logarithmic and subjective. [[Special:Contributions/2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F45E:2108:85C6:F28A|2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F45E:2108:85C6:F28A]] ([[User talk:2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F45E:2108:85C6:F28A|talk]]) 09:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
== Volume 1, Fascicle 1 ==
Line 145 ⟶ 144:
:::::: Amazon.com appears to have retracted their estimated release date. Volume 4B doesn't even appear now on Amazon.com using title or ISBN search, although google ISBN search can find it, but with no estimated release date. [[Special:Contributions/72.211.204.66|72.211.204.66]] ([[User talk:72.211.204.66|talk]]) 17:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
:Volume 4B has been released and article has been updated with relevant details. [[User:Devpro1981|Devpro1981]] ([[User talk:Devpro1981|talk]]) 06:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::: That's true. On April 9, Amazon sent me the following message, and I assumed that it was about to ship:
Line 175:
If fascicle 5 indeed already released, the article needs to be updated in several places... <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/5.150.92.130|5.150.92.130]] ([[User talk:5.150.92.130#top|talk]]) 14:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Why associate Chaper 22 of "Selected Papers on Design of Algorithms" with "Recursion" ? ==
The current chapter outline says: "Chapter 8 – Recursion (chapter 22 of "Selected Papers on Analysis of Algorithms")"
I'm looking right now at Chapter 22 of "Selected Papers on Design of Algorithms", which is a reprint of "Semi-Optimal Bases for Linear Dependencies", originally published in Linear and Multilinear Algebra 17 (1985). It is a four page paper, with the following abstract (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03081088508817636?journalCode=glma20):
> Let A be an m × n matrix of real or complex numbers, and let μ. be a given constant ≥ 1. If A has rank m, it is possible to choose m columns of A such that, if B is the m × m matrix formed by these m columns, all entries of B −1 A are less than or equal to μ in absolute value. Moreover, if μ > 1, it is possible to find m such columns in a number of steps that is polynomial in m and n and inversely proportional to log μ.
The word "recursion" does not occur in the text of chapter 22. The book *does* list five entries for "recursion" in the index, but none of them are associated with chapter 22.
Therefore: Was this change in error? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Art_of_Computer_Programming&diff=prev&oldid=875169161
[[User:Pnkfelix|Pnkfelix]] ([[User talk:Pnkfelix|talk]]) 13:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
: Note that the "Selected Papers on '''Design''' of Algorithms" that you're reading (https://cs.stanford.edu/~knuth/da.html, the seventh of eight collected-papers volumes) is different from "Selected Papers on '''Analysis''' of Algorithms" (https://cs.stanford.edu/~knuth/aa.html, the fourth of the eight volumes), in which Chapter 22 is called "Textbook Examples of Recursion" (and is a slightly updated version of https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/9301113). So at least whoever made the change wasn't making an error, though personally I think that article has only mild relevance to be mentioned in the chapter outline here. [[User:Shreevatsa|Shreevatsa]] ([[User talk:Shreevatsa|talk]]) 20:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
: \facepalm that was embarrassing. I even managed to transcribe my title without noticing the difference from the line above. Never mind my question then. [[User:Pnkfelix|Pnkfelix]] ([[User talk:Pnkfelix|talk]]) 02:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
== When Knuth began the project in 1962 ... ==
So, TAOCP has been a work-in-progress monograph for over sixty years! Can it earn a place in the Guinness Book of World Records on that basis? [[User:Toddcs|Toddcs]] ([[User talk:Toddcs|talk]]) 14:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
:Perhaps, but it has organically transformed into the project as we see it now; with hindsight. The project he embarked upon was much more limited in scope. Or let me try to explain that in more detail as one who has in fact written several highly regarded textbooks. You think: Oh, it would be nice to bring all this stuff together in, oh, about a dozen chapters in, tops, 500 pages. But then you notice that things that in your own (specialist's) mind appear to be easy, simple, monolithic, unitary, are actually the opposite of all that: they are subtle and complicated, and if you want to do right by your neophyte reader, they require a lot more careful explanation. And before you know it, the project balloons into a dozen volumes instead of a dozen chapters. All academic editors can tell you tales about trying to reign in their authors. ''On top of all this'', Knuth was infected with the bug of comprehensivitis. (Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love TAoCP.)[[Special:Contributions/2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:A8AF:DF88:4C28:2656|2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:A8AF:DF88:4C28:2656]] ([[User talk:2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:A8AF:DF88:4C28:2656|talk]]) 08:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
== Why has NYQ changed all headings to lower case? ==
Is this some Wikipedia style preference?
It is not from the headings in the books. [[User:Ian.joyner|Ian.joyner]] ([[User talk:Ian.joyner|talk]]) 00:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
: Secton headings should be in lower case, except for the first word and proper names. See [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings]]. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 00:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
== Missing dedication ==
The famous dedication "to the Type 650 computer" is not present in a scan I have of the 3rd edition of volume 1. Perhaps it was removed? Can we confirm which editions it appears in and clarify the article? [[User:Faught|Faught]] ([[User talk:Faught|talk]]) 18:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
: Update - I found the scan of the 3rd edition on the Internet Archive, and it does have the dedication, so perhaps my scan is incomplete (I don't remember where I found it online). [[User:Faught|Faught]] ([[User talk:Faught|talk]]) 18:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
== Volume 4 splitted in subvolumes 4A, 4B, .. ==
Instead of referring to 4A, 4B as volumes it would be more correct to use the term subvolumes 4A, subvolumes 4B, ..
<br>So for example:<br>
Volume 4B consists of material evolved from Fascicles 5 and 6<br>
May be changed in:<br>
Subvolume 4B consists of material evolved from Fascicles 5 and 6<br> [[Special:Contributions/93.42.64.227|93.42.64.227]] ([[User talk:93.42.64.227|talk]]) 09:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
: No, they are called volumes everywhere, by Knuth and by the publishers. You seem to be proposing your own new terminology. (And they ''are'' separate volumes, in the sense of ''“A single book of a publication issued in multi-book format”'' as you can see if you pick one up; it's just that the ''names'' of the volumes happen to be "1", "2", "3", "4A", "4B"…) [[User:Shreevatsa|Shreevatsa]] ([[User talk:Shreevatsa|talk]]) 04:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
:: I agree with "volume". [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 04:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
== too detailed ==
Why is the table of contents replicated in this article? It's completely unnecessary. -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 14:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
:Per [[WP:NONFICTION]], I've removed the larger of the two table of contents. -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 15:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
::I'm following Knut's work on TAOCP for forty years. The detailed section that is reputed unnecessary, is very important to follow the evolution of this fundamental work. Pre fascicle are strongly linked to the index entries. I'd like have it again. It's an error consider detailed content a duplication. [[Special:Contributions/93.35.206.177|93.35.206.177]] ([[User talk:93.35.206.177|talk]]) 10:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
:::A proposal: reinsert detailed conted using an open/close section, closed by default [[Special:Contributions/93.35.206.177|93.35.206.177]] ([[User talk:93.35.206.177|talk]]) 10:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
:::[[WP:NONFICTION]] says {{tq|an exhaustive list of contents, without any editorial commentary or significance, should not be included}}, and I think we should adhere to that guideline. If you'd like to write prose about the development path, then I think that would be welcome -- but of course it will need references provide encyclopedic content. -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 20:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
| |||