Comment

Comment by furyofantares

I think "How randomness improves algorithms" makes it sound kind of mystical and paradoxical.

Instead we could say "we know shortcuts that work for most values in a population, but we don't know how to figure out which values without expensive computation" and that's not very mystical or paradoxical.

And using random sampling is now the obvious way to deal with a situation. But it's not random doing the work, that's an implementation detail of how you do the sampling.

It very well can be that there isn't another obvious way to iterate through the sample space that isn't a disaster. Maybe bad values are clumped together so when you retry on failure you retry a lot. But if that's the case, there might also be a better way to sample than random - if bad values are clumped then there may be an intelligent way to sample such that you hit two bad values in a row less often than random.

My question is if that's what's being referred to as 'derandomizing' - taking one of these algorithms that uses random sampling and sample more intelligently. Or if they instead mean using what they learned from the (so-called) probabilistic algorithm to go back to a more traditional form.

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton