Regarding the Permutation problem, there is one solution I found by Yahooing....(and later googling)
If you are interested, check out these two links :-
This contains a C code This was found by Googling.Didnt understand a bit.Very bewildering.
This contains an explanation of the C-code above (in my opinion) This was found by Yahooing.
Anyway , it is a problem for which papers have been written, as Teju has just pointed out. Which means it is a difficult one.
Have to get the time to understand these kinda problems !!
7 comments:
Interestingly you yahoo'd and then googl'd. was that conscious? has yahoo matched upto google? are you making a subtle point on the shifting of loyalties
yeah... :-))
kinda shift of loyalties ...but just the "aishwarya rai effect"....everybody so much loves the google (like aishwarya rai....it is just too perfect)
that you actually start getting dependent on it....
just tired of seeing people worship google.....so try other search engines too!
aishwarya rai effect is this - you like it initially, then you feel sick on seeing it, and then you feel repulsed, and then you get immune to it.
sushmita sen effect is this - you don't like it all that much initially, then you start liking it a little, then you love it, then you try and get a lot more of it, then you relate to it, then you get immune to it.
In both cases, in the end, you get immune to it. Probably the journey matters more than the destination.
DhiOnlyOne:
Hilarious !
You make a very interesting point about search engines (probably) without realizing its profundity ;)))
Jokes apart, it is healthy for the web to have more than one major search engine because search engines are the bigger window into the web now, than just random hyperlink clicking. People find stuff off of search engines. As everyone discovers new sites only through search engines, the hyperlink structure also evolves based on search engine results, and interestingly, search engines revolve around hyperlink structure. So, 2 or more parties (search engines) are affecting a global quantity (the web), and they are both getting affected in return, creating a self serving loop of sorts. Under such circumstances, a conceptual or syntactic error by one search engine will not skew the evolution of the web. The odds of both search companies making the same "error" either by accident or by collusion is pretty slim.
I think this can be seen as an argument against any monopoly. But here, the self serving cycle is way smaller than the ones faced by typical business monopolies.
the web is saved from being monopolized by a single search engine because of the existence of a standard, which anyone can decode and the fact that lot of content is being posted free of cost for the 'post'er atleast. the power of the network is so large that it cannot be dictated to by one entity.
what if, in future, a page has to be encoded only in a particular way for google to find it. now, that triggers off a whole new ride.
"Write it this way, or else we wont post you on srch results". thats arm-twisting.
maybe intelligent others will reject the idea. maybe they will accept it if they feel that googl is the true blue window to the world. better go thru them or never.it may happen.
something like, the kind of network advantage which MS enjoys today with its office suite. try changing the encoding std today. It wont work unless MS agrees to it. (which it wont) and it wont work because most of the office doc is encoded through their products.
paaps, was that first line intentioanal :-)
BV, the one thing which you haven't identified is that the web is HUGE, and if new posters start posting stuff on the web, people will never find it. What we see on Google exists, the rest of it is invisible. Thats what I meant by Google shaping the web, and the existence of Yahoo!, MSN, Teoma, etc. will balance Google's impact on the way the web evolves.
If a search engine cartel evolves in the future, we are fucked. I seriously don't believe in the "do no evil" policy.
Post a Comment