Tha computer program either has all the composite numbers precompiled and looks up the solution (or that its a prime number) or its just a composition of all the bf programs starting with the shortest one.
@thenatureofnurture6336Күн бұрын
More than half the video is just confusing as he keeps repeating "actual distance" without differentiating between the length of the shortest route and the distance 'as the crow flies.' I guess the jokes on me for watching more than ten minutes of a video that doesn't clearly define terms.
@SuperStrikeagleКүн бұрын
How would we implement this algorithm for least time? Considering that roads have different speeds / traffic conditions, would me multiply the potential (distance) by the inverse of the average speed? So calculating the minimum time? I always question this, because when i go to work theres basically 2 distinct paths, one that is way shorter but goes through the city center, and one thats longer (it even goes the opposite direction at the beginning) but goes through a highway, which is more than double the speed limit of the city. And are there any more interesting things happening at real maps applications?
@alwaysluffy.2 күн бұрын
Hey, i was facinated by this video : kzread.info/dash/bejne/dZuLkqqJeNSsdZs.htmlsi=1Yo0gvVBI2DUjTLR Can anyone guide me how to implement this any projects, tutorials, any exsisting yt videos anything will help thank you guys ❤❤
@joeedh3 күн бұрын
This video is nonsense.
@joeedh3 күн бұрын
I hate it when people just start out with a highly obfuscating metaphor because it works better for some edge case and *don't mention this until the end*.
@hannahnelson45696 күн бұрын
This is hillarious!
@AA-zo6xr8 күн бұрын
Okay so I understand that this shows the shortest path, but this assumes that you are moving at a constant speed. What happens if you have one path the has a longer length but allows you to move faster compared to a shorter path in which you move slower?
@notohkae11 күн бұрын
great video
@rujon28811 күн бұрын
i forget april 1st videos still exist after april the 1st. i can get fooled all year round (;
@shaksham.2212 күн бұрын
I thought A* algorithm meant Ass algorithm
@markfinn82513 күн бұрын
Nine i say nine steps using a digital clock and calculator device
@markfinn82513 күн бұрын
If i could send a picture to utube i let u see my chart
@markfinn82513 күн бұрын
What about a 2 square rubics cube made of cardboard?
@anythingatall147113 күн бұрын
Why not just roll a single die? If it's a one, the order is: P1, P2, P3. If it's a 2, the order is: P1, P3, P2. And so on. Each face of the die corresponds to a different ordering.
@dongameleone248913 күн бұрын
dude I will have to develop an A# algorithm just to search the youtube for a normal explanation of this algorithm
@2kadrenojunkiegaming65517 күн бұрын
this is... beautiful.
@Manabender22 күн бұрын
My initial solution is very simple, but it meets the criteria for any number of traitors. Each general asks all other generals for their opinion. Then, if all generals respond "yes" AND the asking general wants "yes", then agree to "yes". Otherwise, agree to "no". I suspect there is a better solution that allows the honest generals to agree to the majority, assuming the majority is greater than the sum of the minority plus traitors. I am currently too tired to devise such a solution.
@timseguine215 күн бұрын
As far as I can tell in this protocol, the generals will always decide "no" unless everybody had the initial opinion of "yes". Under this protocol, traitors can force the answer to always be no if they want (although that wouldn't mean a failure of the protocol). So this solution seems very similar practically to the trivial solution that was ruled out despite satisfying the new rule that was introduced to eliminate the trivial solution.
@yahalo440924 күн бұрын
02:19 What happened here is an Edge case. It will most likely never happen again.
@Akniy25 күн бұрын
This is an over-complication of A* algorithm
@AcademiaCS127 күн бұрын
Very interesting. Amazingly built up work. This piece of art is collectable. Thank you so much.
@trevmatlo4363Ай бұрын
Using the third dimension to visualise the direct distance of each node to Rome is GENIUS. I don't know if that was your idea but regardless the animation is great and the explanation is clear, this is a great video.
@PolylogCSАй бұрын
See the blog post for more related interesting stuff! vasekrozhon.wordpress.com/2024/03/29/why-arguing-generals-matter-for-the-internet/
@VivekYadav-ds8ozАй бұрын
When I first saw the video, I was bewlidered and slightly confused. It felt like it had some cool majestic knowledge. Now that I've studied A* academically/classically, the video unfortunately reveals itself to be more popscienc-y and stars and glitters than anything useful. The insight of lifting the heuristic in the 3rd dimension did not have a satisfying payoff. It was just kinda there. Then, consistency and admissibility, which are pretty interesting properties were not elaborated on. I have loved your previous work, but gotta say this one was just kinda redundant.
@shadyworld1Ай бұрын
Next Explain Q* please using similar cases to compare Apples to apples ❤
@florianfabre6557Ай бұрын
Is it possible to use a* to solve a rubics cube or does it take to push time ?
@XYGamingRemedyGАй бұрын
"how fast?" I can't.
@byreinmucia3847Ай бұрын
how do you make a video that shows the cubes on the diagram like that? its amazing
@lipstickprincess1Ай бұрын
Never.
@liaoliiАй бұрын
About the part where AlphaCode sorts the nodes by their depth: my solution used this as well, so it probably just saw various solutions that used that and it ended up in the code even though it's not used.
@ccolombe2 ай бұрын
Fire video as always! Excited for the next one :)
@SickegalAlien2 ай бұрын
Very few problems in society find their solutions through votes. Most actual problems are solved by bureaucracy. If we're lucky, this bureaucracy is transparent and accountable. Then, the people (demos) have power (kratos), i.e. it's a "democracy". As we see, voting isn't *actually* relevant to the process per se. Now, it is the case that many countries ensure the "accountability" part through elections, but there's nothing inherently "correct" about such an approach. Even when we talk about scenarios that require a *referendum,* what specifically gets put on the ballot is decided bureaucratically, never mind the implementation itself. If you find yourself criticising your county's *voting scheme* then most likely the problem really lies somewhere deeper (in the bureaucracy) but you simply have been conditioned to think that elections will make your worries go away and/or discouraged from seeking other forms of accountability. Conversely, as long as the bureaucracy does its job well enough, you won't think of blaming the *voting scheme*
@benhoffman41022 ай бұрын
DUDE CONGRATS ON THE ACX THING
@drgutman2 ай бұрын
here's a new one "a multistage weighed voting mechanism for content validation in a peer-review meritocratic trust network". been trying to get people to pay attention for years. nobody cares, they insist on using these obsolete systems based on pen and paper, like we don't have access to a global network of virtually instant communication. 🙄
@seansettgast56992 ай бұрын
I kind of wish that STAR voting had been included in how the voting theorists ranked the voting systems, but I can also understand why it wasn't, as all it is is just two voting systems combined, so maybe it may not have been atomic enough...? STAR is an acronym that stands for Score Than Automatic Runoff. Score voting is very similar to approval voting, but rather than giving a thumbs up or thumbs down, it's a 5-star voting system; for the candidate you like the most, you give 5 stars. For the candidate you hate the most, you give 1 star. A vote of 3 stars is a vote of indifference, meaning you really don't care if this person makes it in to office, but you would've preferred someone else, and so on. The two candidates with the highest number of stars are then placed into an automatic, instant runoff. If candidate B and candidate D are the two in the runoff for having the highest amount of stars, and on your ballot candidate B had more stars than candidate D, then candidate B officially gets your vote, regardless of how many stars each candidate started with on your ballot. So even if candidate B had 2 stars and candidate D had 1, candidate B still gets your vote because they still had more stars on your ballot, meaning that, yes, you dislike both candidates, but you dislike candidate B less and therefore prefer candidate B over D. Website for more info: www.starvoting.org/
@JasonMitchellofcompsci2 ай бұрын
Someone developed poor consensus on how to cut your hair. Sorry for the roast. But you might want to adjust where you go, or how you do it.
@vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvw2 ай бұрын
you look like toxi$
@bobstein84062 ай бұрын
I'd like to see what you do with STAR voting. Nice job otherwise.
@Dardasha_Studios2 ай бұрын
THIS WAS BRILLIANT!!!
@Babakinha2 ай бұрын
Awesome vid >:3
@logician12342 ай бұрын
What's the memory complexity of this algorithm?
@hellfishii2 ай бұрын
Wee making it out of bullying with dis one fam 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔉🔉🔉🔉🔉
@feuermurmel2 ай бұрын
Wait, is RSA still a thing? 😮
@rennoc64782 ай бұрын
AMONG US
@Hv4n64u6c2 ай бұрын
ahoj ríšo 👋
@iamr0b0tx2 ай бұрын
13:20 Felt cute might delete later 😂
@dcx452 ай бұрын
Byzantine video, byzantine haircut.
@white_1452 ай бұрын
bro you look like this guy from despicable me
@JohnBoen2 ай бұрын
This was a great video. It reacquainted me with concepts I hadn't needed to use for a while. You explained it at a rate faster than I could recall it - it was like learning it for the first time. Thank you for a great start to my day :)
@cmilkau2 ай бұрын
The problem that makes all blockchain protocols fundamentally insecure is that there is no cryptographic proof of being the leader, so there can be disagreement on how the chain continues due to spoofing (note even when messages are signed a fake leader can send different messages for their own transactions, e.g. sending the same coin to different people). This chain split has happened multiple times in the past. It would be virtually impossible in a cryptographically secure protocol. But actual countermeasures rely on a computational advantage for the honest participants to succeed. A cryptographically secure system would require an astronomical computational advantage for the dishonest parties to succeed, not just a slight one.
@catmaxi25992 ай бұрын
Huh? Generally it's always a leaderless protocol so ofc theres no proof of whos the leader? The whole point is to make it decentralized.
@cmilkau2 ай бұрын
Can we please stop the Blockchain bs? There is an older solution that is much more flexible and more importantly *proven* secure. Read up universally composable security or secure multiparty computation. Both approaches allow you to create a virtual trustworthy central authority from a system of unreliable interconnected parties.
@batlin2 ай бұрын
How is creating a central authority a solution to wanting a *decentralised* network based on consensus? The entire *point* of blockchains (and block lattices or whatever else is new) was to get away from centralised leadership.
Пікірлер
Tha computer program either has all the composite numbers precompiled and looks up the solution (or that its a prime number) or its just a composition of all the bf programs starting with the shortest one.
More than half the video is just confusing as he keeps repeating "actual distance" without differentiating between the length of the shortest route and the distance 'as the crow flies.' I guess the jokes on me for watching more than ten minutes of a video that doesn't clearly define terms.
How would we implement this algorithm for least time? Considering that roads have different speeds / traffic conditions, would me multiply the potential (distance) by the inverse of the average speed? So calculating the minimum time? I always question this, because when i go to work theres basically 2 distinct paths, one that is way shorter but goes through the city center, and one thats longer (it even goes the opposite direction at the beginning) but goes through a highway, which is more than double the speed limit of the city. And are there any more interesting things happening at real maps applications?
Hey, i was facinated by this video : kzread.info/dash/bejne/dZuLkqqJeNSsdZs.htmlsi=1Yo0gvVBI2DUjTLR Can anyone guide me how to implement this any projects, tutorials, any exsisting yt videos anything will help thank you guys ❤❤
This video is nonsense.
I hate it when people just start out with a highly obfuscating metaphor because it works better for some edge case and *don't mention this until the end*.
This is hillarious!
Okay so I understand that this shows the shortest path, but this assumes that you are moving at a constant speed. What happens if you have one path the has a longer length but allows you to move faster compared to a shorter path in which you move slower?
great video
i forget april 1st videos still exist after april the 1st. i can get fooled all year round (;
I thought A* algorithm meant Ass algorithm
Nine i say nine steps using a digital clock and calculator device
If i could send a picture to utube i let u see my chart
What about a 2 square rubics cube made of cardboard?
Why not just roll a single die? If it's a one, the order is: P1, P2, P3. If it's a 2, the order is: P1, P3, P2. And so on. Each face of the die corresponds to a different ordering.
dude I will have to develop an A# algorithm just to search the youtube for a normal explanation of this algorithm
this is... beautiful.
My initial solution is very simple, but it meets the criteria for any number of traitors. Each general asks all other generals for their opinion. Then, if all generals respond "yes" AND the asking general wants "yes", then agree to "yes". Otherwise, agree to "no". I suspect there is a better solution that allows the honest generals to agree to the majority, assuming the majority is greater than the sum of the minority plus traitors. I am currently too tired to devise such a solution.
As far as I can tell in this protocol, the generals will always decide "no" unless everybody had the initial opinion of "yes". Under this protocol, traitors can force the answer to always be no if they want (although that wouldn't mean a failure of the protocol). So this solution seems very similar practically to the trivial solution that was ruled out despite satisfying the new rule that was introduced to eliminate the trivial solution.
02:19 What happened here is an Edge case. It will most likely never happen again.
This is an over-complication of A* algorithm
Very interesting. Amazingly built up work. This piece of art is collectable. Thank you so much.
Using the third dimension to visualise the direct distance of each node to Rome is GENIUS. I don't know if that was your idea but regardless the animation is great and the explanation is clear, this is a great video.
See the blog post for more related interesting stuff! vasekrozhon.wordpress.com/2024/03/29/why-arguing-generals-matter-for-the-internet/
When I first saw the video, I was bewlidered and slightly confused. It felt like it had some cool majestic knowledge. Now that I've studied A* academically/classically, the video unfortunately reveals itself to be more popscienc-y and stars and glitters than anything useful. The insight of lifting the heuristic in the 3rd dimension did not have a satisfying payoff. It was just kinda there. Then, consistency and admissibility, which are pretty interesting properties were not elaborated on. I have loved your previous work, but gotta say this one was just kinda redundant.
Next Explain Q* please using similar cases to compare Apples to apples ❤
Is it possible to use a* to solve a rubics cube or does it take to push time ?
"how fast?" I can't.
how do you make a video that shows the cubes on the diagram like that? its amazing
Never.
About the part where AlphaCode sorts the nodes by their depth: my solution used this as well, so it probably just saw various solutions that used that and it ended up in the code even though it's not used.
Fire video as always! Excited for the next one :)
Very few problems in society find their solutions through votes. Most actual problems are solved by bureaucracy. If we're lucky, this bureaucracy is transparent and accountable. Then, the people (demos) have power (kratos), i.e. it's a "democracy". As we see, voting isn't *actually* relevant to the process per se. Now, it is the case that many countries ensure the "accountability" part through elections, but there's nothing inherently "correct" about such an approach. Even when we talk about scenarios that require a *referendum,* what specifically gets put on the ballot is decided bureaucratically, never mind the implementation itself. If you find yourself criticising your county's *voting scheme* then most likely the problem really lies somewhere deeper (in the bureaucracy) but you simply have been conditioned to think that elections will make your worries go away and/or discouraged from seeking other forms of accountability. Conversely, as long as the bureaucracy does its job well enough, you won't think of blaming the *voting scheme*
DUDE CONGRATS ON THE ACX THING
here's a new one "a multistage weighed voting mechanism for content validation in a peer-review meritocratic trust network". been trying to get people to pay attention for years. nobody cares, they insist on using these obsolete systems based on pen and paper, like we don't have access to a global network of virtually instant communication. 🙄
I kind of wish that STAR voting had been included in how the voting theorists ranked the voting systems, but I can also understand why it wasn't, as all it is is just two voting systems combined, so maybe it may not have been atomic enough...? STAR is an acronym that stands for Score Than Automatic Runoff. Score voting is very similar to approval voting, but rather than giving a thumbs up or thumbs down, it's a 5-star voting system; for the candidate you like the most, you give 5 stars. For the candidate you hate the most, you give 1 star. A vote of 3 stars is a vote of indifference, meaning you really don't care if this person makes it in to office, but you would've preferred someone else, and so on. The two candidates with the highest number of stars are then placed into an automatic, instant runoff. If candidate B and candidate D are the two in the runoff for having the highest amount of stars, and on your ballot candidate B had more stars than candidate D, then candidate B officially gets your vote, regardless of how many stars each candidate started with on your ballot. So even if candidate B had 2 stars and candidate D had 1, candidate B still gets your vote because they still had more stars on your ballot, meaning that, yes, you dislike both candidates, but you dislike candidate B less and therefore prefer candidate B over D. Website for more info: www.starvoting.org/
Someone developed poor consensus on how to cut your hair. Sorry for the roast. But you might want to adjust where you go, or how you do it.
you look like toxi$
I'd like to see what you do with STAR voting. Nice job otherwise.
THIS WAS BRILLIANT!!!
Awesome vid >:3
What's the memory complexity of this algorithm?
Wee making it out of bullying with dis one fam 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔉🔉🔉🔉🔉
Wait, is RSA still a thing? 😮
AMONG US
ahoj ríšo 👋
13:20 Felt cute might delete later 😂
Byzantine video, byzantine haircut.
bro you look like this guy from despicable me
This was a great video. It reacquainted me with concepts I hadn't needed to use for a while. You explained it at a rate faster than I could recall it - it was like learning it for the first time. Thank you for a great start to my day :)
The problem that makes all blockchain protocols fundamentally insecure is that there is no cryptographic proof of being the leader, so there can be disagreement on how the chain continues due to spoofing (note even when messages are signed a fake leader can send different messages for their own transactions, e.g. sending the same coin to different people). This chain split has happened multiple times in the past. It would be virtually impossible in a cryptographically secure protocol. But actual countermeasures rely on a computational advantage for the honest participants to succeed. A cryptographically secure system would require an astronomical computational advantage for the dishonest parties to succeed, not just a slight one.
Huh? Generally it's always a leaderless protocol so ofc theres no proof of whos the leader? The whole point is to make it decentralized.
Can we please stop the Blockchain bs? There is an older solution that is much more flexible and more importantly *proven* secure. Read up universally composable security or secure multiparty computation. Both approaches allow you to create a virtual trustworthy central authority from a system of unreliable interconnected parties.
How is creating a central authority a solution to wanting a *decentralised* network based on consensus? The entire *point* of blockchains (and block lattices or whatever else is new) was to get away from centralised leadership.