Re: A basic question about hashing

From: Mok-Kong Shen (mok-kong.shen_at_t-online.de)
Date: 09/15/04


Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:12:29 +0200


Bryan Olson wrote:
> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>
>>Then it's time that you start to always ignore my posts,
>>e.g. thru putting me on your kill-file. Isn't that a
>>good idea?
>
>
> Such hypocrisy.
>
>
>>As I said, if you want to constructively comment (on the
>>assumption that my ideas could be partly useful in your
>>view), then please do it.
>
>
> That assumption makes no sense to me, so I stand by my previous
> comment:
>
> I recommend studying the structure, motivation, and analysis
> of hashing methods before nominating further candidates of
> your own.

I clearly explained in the part that you clipped what you
should 'resonably' do (and in a way nice for the general
readers) in the other case (i.e. when the assumption is
not true).

There are invariably many ways of doing the same thing
in real life. A foreign language is generally learnt in a
course by studying grammars and doing excercise corrected
by teachers. But it could also be learnt by attempting
simply to communicate with the native speakers without any
books and any pedagogical means, perhaps initially with
quite a lot of help with the hands and the fingers etc.
I just don't see why putting up some ideas that are more
or less guided by intuition (even entirely from intuition)
could be harmful. If these per chance lead you as reader
directly or indirectly (e.g. through discussions that
identify their mistakes) to some thoughts of your own that
eventually turn out to be really of value in practice,
then that's superb. If not, then what? If you find them
to be ridiculous, then that possibly helps your health
(in making your laugh). If you find them boring, then
you have anyway a good means to keep them out: Put such
authors on your kill-file. I think (suppose/conjecture)
that on the contrary many important ideas in science and
technology came largely from intuition. The very first
person who thought of the possibility of employing a
device to help him to fly in the air certainly knew
nothing of what we term as the theory of aerodynamics.
Not everything in practical life stems from a 'deduction'
process (rigorous logical analysis), in fact the opposite
(employing induction, ad-hoc reasoning) is true. Once
again, if you feel annoyed by distraction from stuff that
in your opinion is rubbish, then treat such in the same
way that you would treat all the advertisements that you
find daily in the media (TV, newspaper, etc.) and on the
street and that you would actually prefer that they were
not there.

M. K. Shen