TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

PageRank is bad math: discussion

17 点作者 pixcavator将近 14 年前

5 条评论

drx将近 14 年前
Regardless of whether PageRank is "bad math" (the author being the arbiter of what's bad), it was never about being formally anal, it was about solving a problem -- making search much, much better than the then-competition.<p>PageRank solves the problem with flying colors. There is nothing wrong about having hidden constants that you tweak until you get the results you want. The alternative would be to, instead of coding what has become Google, attempt to find a more general solution. Maybe you'll find it. Maybe. And if you do, by the time you have, someone else will have come and made Google instead of you. And for what? Mathematical purity? Phobia of constants?<p>I suppose the author also feels much of physics is also bad, since it's riddled with constants upon constants, all of which are "ticking time bombs": <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant</a>
评论 #2733949 未加载
评论 #2734207 未加载
评论 #2733955 未加载
akie将近 14 年前
The math in the original 1998 PageRank paper might not be mathematically 100% sound, but why would they need that in the first place? Do you really think you need a formal analysis before you build something? This is not academia, you know - if you need a formal proof of everything you do, you'd never get anything done.<p>Besides, the paper you're referring to is 13 years old. Why drag it up now?
评论 #2733990 未加载
justin_vanw将近 14 年前
"But π=3.14159265358979 is a time bomb! Sooner or later it will fail you when it’s not accurate enough anymore."<p>Well, actually for almost everything humans do, this will never, ever fail you. In fact, I can't think of a single thing this will fail for outside of physics research or formal mathematics.
VMG将近 14 年前
it may be flawed math but it is solid engineering
评论 #2733893 未加载
jcampbell1将近 14 年前
&#62; But π=3.14159265358979 is a time bomb! Sooner or later it will fail you when it’s not accurate enough anymore.<p>If you know the exact diameter of the sun, and calculate the circumference with 3.14159265358979 as an estimate for pi, then your error will be about 10 microns. Using a 14 digit estimate of pi, is never going to be a timebomb for any practical task. If the earth was round to 14 significant digits the highest mountains would tower 10 nanometers above the deepest valley.
评论 #2734029 未加载
评论 #2734529 未加载