Hacker News Reader

Comment by vecter | Hacker News Reader

I skimmed the abstract and the paper and didn't see any, but that doesn't surprise me either. This is a theoretical computer science paper. It doesn't need code to show correctness, as long as they prove their claims. I'm curious why you're seeking such code?

edit: why the downvotes? Theoretical CS academics basically do math and very few write any actual code to supplement their papers.

View on HN

I think you are downvoted because he asked a question and you didn't attempt to answer it. You're not wrong, just off topic for what was expected.

Fair enough. I answered the question implicitly but perhaps I should have been more explicit.

A combined compression and indexing scheme that actually has code is Succinct by Berkeley [0]. I remember being impressed by the tradeoffs you can dial in and its performance in a 2015 presentation [1].

[0] http://succinct.cs.berkeley.edu/wp/wordpress/ [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_SHYey7eas (Video)

Thank you. Yes, I understand that theoretical computer science is math and the result is a proof. I'm more used to papers where the interesting part is a benchmark, with a "proof of correctness" part I can safely skip. And in order to produce the graphs of the benchmark results, they have to implement it.

Edit: Never mind, missed a word.

You can describe algorithms using normal English perfectly fine. You can then use normal English to prove the correctness of your claims. This is what almost all papers about algorithms from the theoretical CS community do.

Oh shoot, I missed the word "code", that's why it didn't make sense to me! Sorry, removing my comment...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com