[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 144 KB, 1512x1072, feature.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9895835 No.9895835 [Reply] [Original]

>feature

>> No.9897183

>>9895835
it's a verb, the predicate of the sentence.

>> No.9897204

>>9897183
It's still butchered English.

>> No.9897236

>>9897204
how so?

>> No.9897241

>>9895835
>>9897204
>being this ESL
know your place

>> No.9897243

>>9895835
>>9897204
>These algorithms feature...
That's a perfectly valid sentence retard

>> No.9897275

>>9897236
Algorithms do not "feature run times".
"To feature" means "to star, contain, or ascribe the greatest importance to something within a certain context", or more archaically "to have features resembling".

Are run times _contained_ in algorithms? No: they are a property/dimension of algorithms. Run times are not contained in algorithms anymore than height is contained in humans.

Are run times _ascribed_ to algorithms? No, they're intrinsic to algorithms.

Do algorithms have features resembling run times? No, run time is a way to measure how an algorithm behaves along a certain dimension.

>> No.9897280

>>9897241
>>9897243
Get a load of these morons...
I bet you also say stupid shit like "he hates on X".

>> No.9897295

>>9897275
>>9897280
Grammar is not well defined and it evolves

>> No.9897299

The verb that the author should have used in that context is "to have".

>these algorithms have run times that...

>> No.9897302

>>9897275
Does your brain not have natural language processing capabilities?

>> No.9897306

Shit thread OP

>> No.9897311

>>9897295
One man's mistake does not redefine grammar. Using "to feature" in that manner completely divorces it from its etymology and history of use.

>> No.9897315

>>9897302
We can't all be unwashed swine like you.

>> No.9897318

>>9897311
There is no mistake. That's a perfectly way to use feature

>> No.9897321

>>9897318
For an pidgin retard, maybe.

>> No.9897322

>>9897275
Your posts feature a four year old's understanding of the language

>> No.9897325

>>9897321
an *ESL pidgin retard

>> No.9897331

>>9897321
Words don't have well defined meanings

>> No.9897332

>>9897322
Your usage of "feature" here is correct, however your claim that my understanding of English is that of a 4yo's isn't.

>> No.9897342

>>9897331
"Well defined" is not a synonym for "unambiguous". This usage goes beyond the bounds of polysemy. It's "novel".

>> No.9897349

>>9897342
Words are ambiguous as well

>> No.9897350

>>9897332
Feature is a perfectly normal word to use when talking about the properties that a thing exhibits. Your posts feature certain properties (poor understanding, anger, dogged determinism, intense autism...), these algorithms feature certain properties. There's nothing wrong with any of it.

>> No.9897368

>>9897350
Now you're using "to feature" as a synonym for "to exhibit", which is also fucking stupid.

Actual synonyms for "to feature":

>to underline
>to emphasize
>to advertise
>to spotlight
>to star
>to headline
etc
etc
etc

Get a brain, ESL.

>> No.9897378

>>9897368
Brainlet

>> No.9897385
File: 29 KB, 645x588, e02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9897385

>>9897378

>> No.9897396

>>9897368
It really triggered you when I called you out for being an uppity ESL, huh. lmao
Go spend a few years getting a working understanding of the language, the dictionary and thesaurus approach is only going to get you so far

>> No.9897398

>>9897385
Natural language is hard. It's not black and white

>> No.9897420

This use of feature is derived from the noun feature and means «to have». Modern Anglophones have a propensity for verbing nouns.

>> No.9897429
File: 23 KB, 700x377, Epson-Home-Cinema-2040-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9897429

>>9897396

>> No.9897434

>>9897420
Yeah, """modern anglophones""" i.e. immigrants and ESLs who butcher the language.

>> No.9897447

>>9897434
I can English with the rest of them. It's not rocket appliances.

>> No.9897454

Some brainlet english major told me it's incorrect to say "relative to". Lol fuck off.

>> No.9897473

>>9897429
look its there paper and it doe'snt effect you so stop being a looser when you could of not featured the qualites of being a faggot

>> No.9897479

>>9895835
"boast" would have been the better option, compared to "feature".

>> No.9897521

>>9897479
Wrong, "boast" means to talk with excessive pride and self-satisfaction about one's achievements, possessions, or abilities

>> No.9897536

>>9897521
Don't try to impersonate me, fag.

>> No.9897542

>>9897536
Huh?

>> No.9897552

>>9897521
Wrong. "to boast something" means to "show off". You mean "to boast", which means "to brag".

>> No.9897564

>>9897552
An algorithm cannot "show off", ESL

>> No.9897570

>>9897564
Bullshit. I can personify an algorithm as much as I want. In the same way you can say things like "earth boasts quite a diverse ecosystem".

>> No.9897572
File: 37 KB, 401x226, 2d72e312zik4zj.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9897572

>>9897542
You heard me !

>> No.9897577

>>9897570
This is correct.

>> No.9897838

>>9897342
>It's "novel".
there's nothing novel about this usage of "feature"
you're just an autistic retard or a shitty bait-poster

>> No.9898370

>>9895835
The authors are making a very implicit comment about reverse compilation.
The related context is 'feature detection'.

>> No.9898442

>>9897311
>redefine grammar.
There is no defined grammar you mongoloid. There's some rules, which English doesn't even have an authority for and so they differ greatly, but these are not comprehensive grammars that really bring to light the nature of the language one is using. Or it's natural adaption and variability. Study some linguistics and fuck off, you autistic pseudo-pedant.

>> No.9898446

>>9897204
[math]
\text{ }^{\color{#571da2}{\displaystyle\text{W}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{\color{#462eb9}{\displaystyle\text{h}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#3f47c8}{\displaystyle\text{y}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#3f62cf}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#437ccc}{\displaystyle\text{i}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#4b90bf}{\displaystyle\text{s}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#56a0ae}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#62ab99}{\displaystyle\text{t}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#71b484}{\displaystyle\text{h}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#82ba70}{\displaystyle\text{i}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#96bc5f}{\displaystyle\text{s}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#a9bd52}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#bcbb48}{\displaystyle\text{o}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#ceb541}{\displaystyle\text{n}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#dcab3c}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#e39938}{\displaystyle\text{/}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#e68033}{\displaystyle\text{s}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#e3632d}{\displaystyle\text{c}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{\color{#de4227}{\displaystyle\text{i}}}}}}\text{ }^{\color{#da2121}{\displaystyle\text{/}}}
[/math]

>> No.9898482

>>9897275
wow you are majorly fucking autistic.

>> No.9898663

>>9898442
Ok ass-hat, that use of "feature" is improper in the prestige dialect. Happy with this reformulation?

>> No.9898667

>>9897275
>ascribe the greatest importance to something within a certain context
This is exactly what he's doing. He singled the run time out as the most impressive result of the research.

>> No.9898730

>>9898482
There isn't inherently something wrong with being autistic, but he's violently autistic.

>> No.9898751

>>9898482
>>9898730
Making note of a standard does not make one autistic. And even if it did, that's neither here nor there. Address >>9898663 or shut up.

>> No.9898819

>>9898751
>>9898667
He's being consistent with the dictionary definition posted in the thread.

>> No.9898828

>>9898819
No he isn't. He's using «feature» as a synonym for «have».

>> No.9898865

>>9898828
Read the post, what he's doing is precisely "ascribing the greatest importance to the run-time within the context of of the paper". Just admit your defeat dude.

>> No.9898870

>>9898865
Read the sentence. He does nothing of the sort.

>> No.9898882

>>9898870
>These algorithms can be easily implemented(multiple precision arithmetic is not needed)
neat
>require virtually no memory
cool
>run times that scale nearly linearly with the order of the digit desired
what a feature.

>> No.9898890

>>9898882
This goes beyond interpretation. You're downright editing his sentence just to make the use of feature stop being awkward.

>> No.9898901

You're such a fucking retard, there's no mistake here.

>> No.9898905

>>9898890
No, I removed two commas and added my comments to illuminate the meaning.

>> No.9898908

>>9898905
Comma placement can change the meaning of a sentence entirely for fuck's sake. You've acted like an editor.

>> No.9898913

>>9898908
But I broke the sentence up exactly like the commas did, you must be trolling at this point. Nobody is this pedantic.

>> No.9898922

>>9898913
You're grasping at straws. Adding your own impressions about a list does not change its original meaning. Run times that scale linearly being a neat feature is your own commentary, not the original phrasing. My reply about commas was directed about your claim about what you did and how fiddling with commas is a negligible change.
The snippet in the OP is about the algorithms, in toto, not their run times. From the start your commentary was pulled by the hair. Using feature like that is improper.

End of story.

>you must be trolling at this point
I should like to ask you the same question.

>> No.9898923

>>9898922
at* your claim about

>> No.9898927

>>9898922
>I should like to ask you the same question.
That's not a question, it's a statement. If we apply your standards, there is no excuse not to commit sudoku for this egregious error.

>> No.9898932

>>9898890
>to make the use of feature stop being awkward.
Very few native English speakers would find the phrasing awkward.

>> No.9898934

>>9898932
>Very few native English speakers would find the phrasing awkward.
Partly true, because very few native English speakers use the prestige dialect.

>> No.9898939

>>9898922
I wasn't trying to sneak my commentary in, it wasn't meant to change the original sentence. It was supposed to show you why the the run-time is the feature and the other things mentioned aren't.
The snippet is about the algorithm and it's feature is the run-time.
You are really committed to being right here, would it hurt you deeply if you were to accept that you were wrong?

>> No.9898943

>>9898934
Autism is still a minority disease

>> No.9898950

>>9898939
Why do you keep trying to make this about feelings? I am not wrong.

>> No.9899134

>>9898950
You demonstrably are. You are flailing here.

>> No.9899212

>>9899134
No.

>> No.9899242
File: 14 KB, 768x188, CUBES___xm298x2ynrcy74tvgt7s376eberijc2dn8cnfddddcbgfvbhdxnjxm9kqma9ksdaqzj928ygh8g++++.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9899242

>>9898950
Yeah, but when you say, "I am not wrong," is that in reference a point of relevance or a point of nuance designed to distract from any points of relevance? I'll tell you what's not wrong: pic related.

Consider the definition of the inverse.
Z x Z^-1 = 1

Every real number has an inverse. Now analytically continue the inverse from the reals to the extended reals. By the definition of the inverse,
∞ x ∞^-1 = 1

So, it may be true that you are not wrong, but are you wrong to demonstrate your correctness before you do the analytic continuation? Yes, you are. If we concede that you can show the countercase in non-continued domain, which you haven't even done instead whining about a point of notation, then one could disprove all of complex analysis by pointing out that there is no such thing as a real number equal to the square root of -1
>BTFO

>> No.9899319

>>9899242
>only true messiah
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31eMO9TlKT4

>> No.9899449

>>9897204
>It's still butchered English.
English is my fourth language, so I wouldn't know for sure, but it seems correct enough for me. the sentence does indeed feature a short 'garden path' as '... feature run ...' fights rather successfully for recognition as a noun phrase, even if it fails in the end, but that's all there is to it. English makes this sort of occurrence unavoidable, being as it is on its way to becoming an isolating language. if verbs still had specific endings, this calamity (scandalizing you) might have been avoided.

>> No.9899620

>>9897275
Everyone knows what the author meant. Therefore it's acceptable in my eyes. I've even met people like you who care so much about these pointless mundane details. I don't understand.

>> No.9899697

>>9899620
>Everyone knows what the author meant.

It makes sense to me when those who pretend not to see what the author meant not go on not to acknowledge in public what the author wrote. However, it is mysterious to me what causes those who see what the author meant to likewise never mention what the author wrote in public.

If it is debated whether or not everyone knows what the author meant, which is the hallmark of clear writing, then why is there 100% uniformity with regards to refusing acknowledge in public the meaning of what the author meant?

Why are those who seem to be on the author's side so totally supportive of the author's detractors' desires to make sure the meaning of what the author meant never gets debated in the public forums that are natural to such deliberations?

>> No.9901013
File: 319 KB, 1481x652, 68BD5317-97F1-4CDE-A41C-714D3E562D8F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9901013

>>9897368
Kys