h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yes, the weird name bit is on my rewrite list, but I can't get it done today, but it should be done shortly.

I wasn't sure about the transferability bit, I'll see if anyone else objects or speaks up in favour of it before I decide (after all at the moment it is 1 - 1).

Researcher PSG

Well of course whether or not you write about transferability is entirely up to you, PSG.

But I disagree with NAITA, who writes: "In RL you can take a copy of your "how to wash shirts"-sheet and cross out shirts and replace with socks"

In this case you can, as it happens, but the point is that you need to _know_ whether you can or not. For instance, you can't assume it's okay to cross out shirts and replace with shoes. You can't just assume it's ok to replace the variable 'water' with bleach or paraffin. That is why, for an algorithm to be most useful, you need to define the variables. Variables are no more to do with computing than keyboards are to do with computing - piano keyboards are not computer keyboards, but both are keyboards.

Bels

Bels is right that you need to know what you can safely replace in the algorithm. My point is just that information about linear, iterative and conditional elements in algorithms are essential to understand their usefullness. Transferability just confuses the issue for someone unused to thinking in terms of algorithms. It introduces a second problem.
To make an algorithm you have to examine the problem, or task, and find out, what steps are involved in performing this task or solving this problem. The algorithm may rely on, or be greatly simplified by conditionals and iteration.
Transferability is another level of thinking, asking the question: 'Which other problems are simliar and can be solved with the same algorithm if I allow some elements to be changed?'
I think this is a complication not needed in this entry, or at least one that needs to be separated out from the body of the explanation.

"It's origin is actually the latin translation of the muslim mathematician and astronomer Al-Khwarizmi1"

translate from which language?
I'm guessing Arabic

I've just read this thread, and thought I'd mention this: Bels said something on page 1 about how a link to a U-page might be removed before it reaches the Sub.. Actually, the Sub gets it straight from PR, as is. As for being immediately removed by a Sub without actually reading why it's there - I like to think none of us would do that. It's a moot point, since Dancer is presumably now in the researcher list. I just thought I'd say that, sort of an FYI, since it's something I actually know about.

A paragraph at the top or bottom of an entry clearly labelled "Note for Sub" with any instructions in it is actually a very good idea that very few people use.

off to actually read this entry now...

Ok, I read it. I like it. I especially like the hand-washing example, followed by the anything-washing example. That's cool. It illustrates very clearly how to introduce a variable to make a process more general.

To make that blindingly obvious, about the variable, I'd say explicitly that "[Article to be washed]" is the variable. To people who don't have any background in computers or math, the word 'variable' isn't guaranteed to carry any meaning, except maybe as an adjective describing the weather.


A first person bit seems to have snuck in: "So to help I have created an algorithm for creating algorithms."


typo: "...note down what items are effected by this task..." That should be "affected".


In step 4 of your algorithm for algorithms, you mention the first action to be performed, and then there it is, capitalized in sqare brackets: "[ACTION 1]". What's that for? It looks like you'll refer back to it later on, but then you don't.


When you say the word has no meaning (after telling us exactly what it means), do you mean that its etymology is not indicative of its meaning, unlike words whose roots are a dead giveaway, like 'arachnophobia', or 'carpark'?


I think the idea of an algorithm for writing an algorithm is a really good one. It makes the entry work on more than one level.



GTB

Hello
Glad my little entry is proving to be so well liked

But you had points

>A first person bit seems to have snuck in: "So to help I have created an algorithm for creating algorithms."

Whoops, no excuse for it, sorry I will fix it.

>In step 4 of your algorithm for algorithms, you mention the first action to be performed, and then there it is, capitalized in sqare brackets: "[ACTION 1]". What's that for? It looks like you'll refer back to it later on, but then you don't.

That was a bit left over from when the titles started "STEP 1 - " or such like, I've just missed this one.

.When you say the word has no meaning (after telling us exactly what it means), do you mean that its etymology is not indicative of its meaning, unlike words whose roots are a dead giveaway, like 'arachnophobia', or 'carpark'?

Already on my rewrite list, but I'll do it in the morning when my brain is awake.

>To make that blindingly obvious, about the variable, I'd say explicitly that "[Article to be washed]" is the variable. To people who don't have any background in computers or math, the word 'variable' isn't guaranteed to carry any meaning, except maybe as an adjective describing the weather.

Thanks for the pointer, another one to look at with a fresh well rested brain.



Like I say, I'm glad you like it. Hopefully it will eventually be a useful addition to the guide, once it has been tweaked

Researcher PSG

I don't get why people should think that 'variable' is such a difficult, abstruse concept to understand. If you can understand it in relation to the weather, you can understand it in relation to an algorithm.

Long before computers, housewives were cooking according to recipes. A recipe is an algorithm with variables. You make the same pie crust whether its an apple pie or a cherry pie.

You can teach young children about variables - no problem.

Bels

"I don't get why people should think that 'variable' is such a difficult, abstruse concept to understand."

Well, it isn't difficult, or abstruse, but people balk at it, because it's a math word. Have you ever taught people who suffer from acute math anxiety? As a math teacher, I can tell you that 'variable', simply by being a word that has a specific meaning in math, freaks some people out. You and I both know that it's perfectly simple. Lucky us.

"Have you ever taught people who suffer from acute math anxiety?"

I _am_ a person who suffers from that! I'm terrible at math. It's the only subject at school that I came bottom of the class in. But I can still understand that the fruit you put in the pie is a variable. So can little grey-haired old ladies. I don't see what that has to do with math - mathematicians will of course rush to explain all that, but it'll go over my head anyway.

How to write in blue - pick up blue pencil, write.
How to write in black - pick up black pencil, write.
How to write in (any colour) - pick up (colour) pencil, write.

Mathematicians may call that math if they like - good luck to them! But if calling it math makes it harder to teach about variables, there has to be something wrong somewhere, doesn't there?

Bels

Well, I have tweaked the entry slightly.

What do you think?

Researcher PSG

Hello

Sorry for this shameful self promotion, but I need any views if I'm to make any corrections over the weekend.

Although praise wouldn't irretrievably damage my ego

Researcher PSG

I still think you need to mention conditionals and repetition, since you're using that in your algorithm algoritm.
I don't think you need to repeat the whole algorithm to explain transferability.
And you've got a couple of "algorithum"s hiding in there.

Hello

I disagree with you on a couple of points (sorry ):

Point 1:
>I don't think you need to repeat the whole algorithm to explain >transferability.
Think of it like the big print version, some people wont see exactly how it works until they see exactly how it works.

Point 2:
>I still think you need to mention conditionals and repetition, since >you're using that in your algorithm algoritm.
If I mention them I risk trying to explain too many things at once and turning people who don't have the trained mind set of a programmer off.

Feel free to argue, these are just my thoughts and I never claim not to be fallible.

Researcher PSG

Ok, let's see....

A header right at the beginning of the entry, before any text, looks funny, at least in Goo. Why not lose the first header and begin the first sentence with "An algorithm is...", instead of with "It is..."?



Your sub will take the periods out of "T.V."



This sentence: "So to make the last algorithum transferable to the washing of any article rather than just hands you specify a variable like this:"

(There's one of those stray 'u's...) I'd say specifically that you are replacing "hands" with the variable "[article to be washed]", or something to that effect. That would make it abundantly clear for those who are hazy on 'variable' as a noun, without dumbing it down for those who have a firm grasp on that word. Heck, someone might even walk away from the entry having learned (or at least had clarified) what a 'variable' is. (That might already happen now; I just think it could be clearer.)



On NAITA's point 2, I think you could include conditionals and repetition without losing anything in accessibility. I'd do it before the last section. Just refer back to your step 8, point out that it has an "If" clause that can send you through a loop (steps 5-8) any number of times. The "If" is a "conditional" statement, and the loop is an example of "repetition". That wouldn't be overly technical for the average reader, IMHO.

You don't have to include that stuff; I'm just saying I don't think it would hurt.



Like I said before, it's already a good entry - Edited Guide quality, for sure.


GTB

>Feel free to argue
Now you've done it.

On my screen at least, which is not the worlds largest, almost the whole of the two lists appear at the same time. Just mentioning the changed steps would suffice in my opinion, but that's where we seem do differ.
I don't think anyone would be confused by:
"Replace step 3, 5, 7 and 8 with:
3. Run [Article to be washed] under water
5. Rub soap on [Article to be washed]
7. Put [Article to be washed] underneath water
8. Rub [Article to be washed]"

I'm not going to annoy you any further on that though.

>If I mention them I risk trying to explain too many things at once
and turning people who don't have the trained mind set of a programmer off.
And just throwing in "This is known as iterative development." is better? Seriously, if they're turned off at that point all they'll miss is the etymology of 'algorithm'. A footnote at least for step 8 telling the reader that "Having conditionals (if corrections made then</b&gt and repetition (go to 5 and do the steps again</i&gt is essential for making algorithms usefull for more than very simple tasks.", is that too much to ask?

I'd love to argue further but if you're not convinced this time I'll just give up. I'll just repeat this again: Algorithms without conditionals and repetition are trivial and only usefull for the simplests tasks.

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

"hurray!" and yet at the same moment "oh Jimbles!" I'd better make the last couple of small corrections quickly.

But thanks to everyone who had input, it's helped me frame the finished entry more clearly.


oh, and thanks to whoever had the good taste to pick it.

Researcher PSG