Why so little parallelism?
|
From: BDH on 20 Dec 2006 09:23 > > I have friends who are looking to hire graphics talent, but they are > > finding that the talent pool is drying up because the perception is that > > graphics is a "solved" problem. They are not even finding it in India > > and China. The normal computing channels have guys who think they don't > > know graphics and art, and they more than enough graphics arts people, > > but fewer and fewer in the technical coding aspects. > > > > Well, perhaps the problem of graphics is solved in terms of low cost > hardware accelerated boards and libraries to drive them, available at > low cost to all, but one would hope that this doesn't mean the end of > basic research... Personally I see 3d wavelet graphics as a promising alternative to meshes.
From: ChrisQuayle on 20 Dec 2006 10:10 BDH wrote: >>>I have friends who are looking to hire graphics talent, but they are >>>finding that the talent pool is drying up because the perception is that >>>graphics is a "solved" problem. They are not even finding it in India >>>and China. The normal computing channels have guys who think they don't >>>know graphics and art, and they more than enough graphics arts people, >>>but fewer and fewer in the technical coding aspects. >>> >> >>Well, perhaps the problem of graphics is solved in terms of low cost >>hardware accelerated boards and libraries to drive them, available at >>low cost to all, but one would hope that this doesn't mean the end of >>basic research... > > > Personally I see 3d wavelet graphics as a promising alternative to > meshes. > Well, that's way over my head, but no doubt someone more able will respond :-)... Chris
From: Nicholas King on 21 Dec 2006 05:19 BDH wrote: >> Writing down the solution is part of solving it. If you can't solve it >> and write it down with 20 minutes then you can simply claim arbitrary >> extra time to solve it whilst you are writing it down. > > You wouldn't say somebody needs to write an algorithm in assembly for > it to be done. You shouldn't say somebody needs to write it in any > programming language for it to be done. Why should you say somebody > should have to write it in English? It needs to be written in some form, you don't need to prove its correctness although that helps :) but you do need to come up with it and write it down in some form that other people can understand within the 20 minutes otherwise you can claim all the time you want. > >> However personally i think your claim is a load of bullshit since i >> could easily just give you any problem from the class of P-Complete >> languages which are thought to be inherently sequential. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-complete > > Well that is an interesting link. I didn't know there was a > parallelization counterpart to NP-complete! No, I can't see a way to > parallelize those P-complete problems, at least with non-quantum > computers that can physically exist. But I thought "I can't do > something if it's impossible" was implied. Of course it wasn't implied since you didn't know that such problem existed. Personally i wonder what sort of competent algorithm designer doesn't know about basic complexity theory. I won't even get into such material as parametrized complexity, reduction rules, PTAS schemes, heuristics or probablistic algorithms. I'm sure there is enough material to a bookshelf of textbooks on algorithm design that you don't know about. It's easy to claim something is easy , its much harder to prove it. Personally i think you are one of those people that don't know enough to know how little you know. There are far too many of them in computer science and IT. Personally i know enough to know that I'm a novice. Nicholas King.
From: Nick Maclaren on 21 Dec 2006 05:30 In article <12okntrag9k9fd3(a)corp.supernews.com>, Nicholas King <zeddie(a)internode.on.net> writes: |> BDH wrote: |> > |> > Well that is an interesting link. I didn't know there was a |> > parallelization counterpart to NP-complete! No, I can't see a way to |> > parallelize those P-complete problems, at least with non-quantum |> > computers that can physically exist. But I thought "I can't do |> > something if it's impossible" was implied. |> |> Of course it wasn't implied since you didn't know that such problem |> existed. Personally i wonder what sort of competent algorithm designer |> doesn't know about basic complexity theory. I won't even get into such |> material as parametrized complexity, reduction rules, PTAS schemes, |> heuristics or probablistic algorithms. Unfortunately, too much of modern IT is pure Blair-type salesmanship, and all of the mathematics and engineering is regarded as subsidiary. |> Personally i know enough to know that I'm a novice. And so am I, even though I have been consulted on this area for 30 years - the more I know, the more I know I don't know :-) Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: BDH on 21 Dec 2006 07:28
> It needs to be written in some form, you don't need to prove its > correctness although that helps :) but you do need to come up with it > and write it down in some form that other people can understand within > the 20 minutes otherwise you can claim all the time you want. The point is not that I want to come in for some sort of exam. The point is that English is the assembly language of thinking. > Personally i wonder what sort of competent algorithm designer > doesn't know about basic complexity theory. Well, in all the things I've done P-completeness never came up. Do you find that surprising? It's interesting, but in terms of actual application... |