tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1689592451067041352.post4985676272078680230..comments2023-05-08T07:41:01.071-07:00Comments on DiEbLog: Another approachDiEbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02099109109735165335noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1689592451067041352.post-64566878758067918432009-10-13T06:40:30.484-07:002009-10-13T06:40:30.484-07:00Amusing observation! BTW, I'll work on this ar...Amusing observation! BTW, I'll work on this article <a href="http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Essay:Conservation_of_Information_in_Search_-_Measuring_the_Cost_of_Success#III._EXAMPLES_OF_ACTIVE_INFORMATION_IN_SEARCH" rel="nofollow">here</a>, the format of the blog isn't math-friendly...DiEbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02099109109735165335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1689592451067041352.post-27011039029707941632009-10-12T21:40:45.117-07:002009-10-12T21:40:45.117-07:00The algorithm is precisely equivalent to searching...The algorithm is precisely equivalent to searching for * in S = {*, A, ..., Z} repeatedly (L times). D&M have rendered the string of characters irrelevant. Their probability of success is the probability that none of L independent searches for * in S fails.Tom Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588057273889552197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1689592451067041352.post-8388428867475245092009-10-12T21:09:39.909-07:002009-10-12T21:09:39.909-07:00At present, there are 116 hits for partitioned sea...At present, there are 116 hits for <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=partitioned+search&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en" rel="nofollow">partitioned search</a> in Google Scholar. Scanning over what I can see in Scholar, it is evident that usage of the term generally does not match that of Dembski and Marks. I do not have it in me to dig in and see if someone else has used the term as they do.<br /><br />D&M's use of "partitioned search" does not make sense to me. I can see refinements of a partition of the search space as the search proceeds, with the search restricted to blocks in refined partitions. But the term still seems weird.<br /><br />The "divide and conquer" makes plenty of sense. If I recall correctly, D&M previously wrote of <i>parallel</i> search. If they wrote out their algorithm explicitly, there would be a "for i in {1, ..., L} do" loop that could be turned into "do parallel" for L non-communicating processes.Tom Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588057273889552197noreply@blogger.com