algernonramone

Or A(4,2).

It's not immediately clear from reading this what this means for ACM books, both older ones and new ones. I'm a fan of a lot of their older books, such as the Turing Award Lecture anthology they published in the early 1990s. I'm also interested in some of the newer books they've published in the last several years (The tributes to Dijkstra and Hoare especially stand out). I really hope these are included as well.

I am willing to admit that I find matrix multiplication ugly, as well as non-intuitive. But, I am also willing to admit that my finding it ugly is likely a result of my relative mathematical immaturity (despite my BS in math).

I don't know, but I hate it.

Me too, at first I thought it was a takeoff on "Heathkit". Silly me, I guess.

I always thought that was a cool idea, and I was disappointed when it was essentially abandoned after the PIII. I still think there’s value there for things like customizing processors for certain applications (having a standard base chip and external interface, but being able to customize the rest of the the processor board).

I think ALGOL nowadays would likely work best as sort of a lingua franca psuedocode, I don’t think it would be too difficult to make that work. It kind of was already for a long time, as much of the Collected Algorithms of the ACM were originally written in it IIRC.

I feel that "deterministic" is probably a better word here than "idempotent".

The main problem with a statement like that is that "interesting" is extremely subjective. Personally, I often find math and CS to be more interesting when it's further from reality. To each his own, I suppose.

This is great, and I will download it, but I might be missing something because I don't see the PDF? I guess I will stick to the epub.

I would love to see him write a book, or even just publish a nice compendium of his papers ala Donald Knuth's Collected Papers series (with light editing/updating, background info, commentary, etc.) I think that would truly be a pleasure to read.

Ah, OK, makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!

My thought here is that not all of the data in the database is being accessed at the same time, so the un-accessed data is "at rest". Is that correct, or am I barking up the wrong tree?