It's the results you get that make your algorithm interesting, not how elegant your theory is or how much time you spent developing it
Show this thread
-
I disagree. Good results might be the goal, but ad hoc work is less likely to be adopted. Elegance is easier to incrementally improve.
This is the essence of the scientific method: empirical validation trumps elegance. Most elegant theories turn out to be wrong.
-
-
It's rare that an algorithm with only empirical justification has any longevity, unless it's simultaneously simple or elegant.
-
And what justification other than empirical justification is there? Im talking about science, not philosophy
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.