Reducing
Hyper-Links between Distributed Context-Free Polymorphic
Analog-to-Digital WYSIWYG (Deep
Breath) Distributed Real-Time Logical
Network Data Things
Ian Jacobs
April 1, 1991
In this paper, a subject is presented. The passive voice gets used to
describe it. Distributed hyper-links are concerned. With distributed
hyper-links, the remote transmission of reusable data between clients
is accelerated. Storage space is required, however. The reduction of
these links is therefore motivated. Original work is presented on the
reduction of these links through the context-free logical framework and
a little late night hacking. First, data things, and the links between
them across a network in a real time system consisting of both analog
(for information retrieval) and digital (since I had an A-to-D
converter in the garage) components within the ``look and feel'' of a
WYSIWYG graphical environment with a self-correcting typechecker and a
grant from the Mobil Corporation, is (are?) introduced. An example is
shown. Another example is shown. Another example is shown, this time
with polymorphic fuel-injected overloading and power network data
steering. Hyper-links are presented, at first in
general, then in detail for those who don't understand very simple
ideas the first time. The reduction of these hyper-links is achieved by
applying the Huey-Duey-Luey algorithm. The derivation of this algorithm
as a generalization of well-known ``Edit-Compile-Run'' sequence is
done. With the H-D-L algorithm, a storage reduction of 30% is possible
in the average case. The worst case performance is quite bad, believe
me. The optimality of this algorithm is proved recursively. This proof
is shown to be accurate to within O(n^3). Finally, other hyper-link
reduction techniques are discussed, but not taken seriously.
***************************************
SHAM:
The Superior Higher Abstract Machine
Ian Jacobs
(To appear in the Journal of Logical Mathematics)
In this paper, we present the formal description of an abstract
machine. Though similar to the other well-established abstract machines
---SPAM (Simple Person's Abstract Machine), FNAM (French National
Abstract Machine), JAM (Jelly-like Abstract Machine)--- the SHAM is
more ``abstract'' without being any less ``machine''. The SHAM
introduces the notion of meta-abstraction, or virtual abstraction,
which is a notch more abstract than traditional abstraction, as the
term suggests. During virtual abstraction, the SHAM tries to consider
potential abstraction mechanisms which are naturally instantiations of
generic potential abstraction mechanisms. Although this consideration
phase may require an indeterminate amount of time, all results to date
have been astonishing in the least. To illustrate their importance, we
draw an analogy to Wittgenstein's insights that meaning and truth arise
only through use and external verification, as expounded in The
Philosophical Investigations.
By acknowledging that any conceptual framework does not in fact explain
a given reality but only describes it, the SHAM, in a virtual state of
meta-abstraction, nullifies the significance of all previous abstract
machines, notably Swedish ones. In other words, the prickly questions
raised by research in the domain of abstract machines (cf.
``etherealality''[sic] as addressed by the Cute Little Abstract
Machine) simply flake away in light of these new ideas so steeped in
abstract meta-virtuality. Indeed, just as Wittgenstein --- considered
the greatest philosopher of the century by intellectuals and himself---
unwittingly undermined the work of the innumerable number of probing
minds that preceded him, we hope to disprove, without going so far as
to hurt the feelings of, our respected but misled colleagues. Thus is
the essence of the SHAM.
The system is currently implemented in sed.
Key words: grant, funding,
etherealality.
***************************************
How
to Have Your Abstract Rejected
Mary-Claire van Leunen and Richard
Lipton
If your ideas are bad enough all on their own, you needn't worry about
this advice, Banality, irrelevance, plagiarism, and plain old madness
will get any abstract rejected, no matter how good it is. Similarly, if
your ideas are brilliant, pointed, original, and sane, you have a hard
road ahead of you. Even the worst abstract may not suffice for
rejection Program committees differ in their standards. If, however,
you are like most of us, neither a genius nor an idiot, neither Newton
nor Simple Simon, you will have to put some effort into making your
abstract suitable for rejection. Here are a few tips we can offer.
Submit late. This is the basic
rule in having your abstract rejected. Don't even start writing it
until the deadline for submission is long past. Keep the program
committee informed of your progress. ``Seems to be a little hole in the
proof somewhere.'' ``Don't sit on the edge of your chairs.'' ``Almost
ready.'' ``It's a-comin'.'' ``Any minute now.'' Everyone on the
committee is sure to remember your name when your abstract finally
arrives.
Submit incorrectly. The device
of sending abstracts to the local arrangements chairman is overused.
Try something fresher. Send your abstract to last year's program
chairman. Send it to this year's in care of the school where he did his
undergraduate work or, better yet, to the school that turned him down
for tenure. Send it to someone whose name sounds a little like his.
Under any circumstances, be sure to send it postage due.
Grossly exceed the maximum length
requirements. Most extended abstracts should be eight to twelve
pages long, or between 1,500 and 3,500 words. Your aim, then, should be
for at least 10,000 words. (Read symbols aloud to count how many words
they are -- don't count characters.) There are several interesting
variations on this ploy.
The
Godzilla: Submit a seventy-page paper with instructions to - the
program committee to read the first twelve pages. Be sure page 12 ends
mid-section, mid-paragraph, mid-sentence.
The Monster from the Black Lagoon:
Submit a twelve-page abstract with thirty pages of appendices. Be sure
there is no way anyone can understand the body of the abstract without
reading all of the appendices. By-far the easiest way to accomplish
this is to introduce your own utterly idiosyncratic notation. 1+1 = 2,
for instance, will in your notation be written
b
b| <
1 2 1*.
z| > ^
The King Kong: Submit an
eight-page abstract of 20,000 words. You may need special typographic
equipment for this one, but don't worry; it exists. With an IBM
composer, six-point type, no margins, and no displays, you can write
20,000 words on the head of a pin.
You might think that the opposite strategy would work equally well ---
submitting an abstract that falls far short of the minimum requirement.
Not so. Look at it from the program committee's point of view. They
must read a hundred or more abstracts in the midst of their other
duties. Mere brevity
after all those monster abstracts is going to look good to them.
Vacuity, however, is an excellent technique, and it may be allied with
the shortness strategy for a Run Spot
Run abstract. Here is a good example: We worked in complexity.
We proved some theorems. We proved some big theorems and some little
theorems. Some proofs were big, some were small. We tried to match up
the proofs with the theorems, but we couldn't always do it. Then we
were sleepy and went to bed. Good night. This is a good example but not
a perfect one. Substitute ``computer science'' for ``complexity''" and
you will see how much room for improvement there is in any abstract, no
matter how vapid it may seem at first glance. Only by constant, careful
revision can you insure the rejection of every single abstract you
prepare.
A new tactic we would like to commend is the Grocery List. For this you must give
at least forty theorems. The North American record stands at 97, but
there are allegations that the author was under the influence of
chemical stimulants and the judges are currently reserving the title.
We confidently expect to see in next year's competition exciting new
combinations of the Grocery List with the Run Spot Run and other
devices.
Give no motivation. Present
your results in a vacuum. Strip your ideas of any hint they might offer
as to their origin, direction, or relevance. Say nothing about
practical applications unless you are submitting to a theory
conference, in which case you should be sure to call them
``pragmatics''.
Be sure also to give no background.
Even the novice will know enough to leave off all acknowledgements and
references. But the master will go further. He will give the appearance
of citation without any substance. He will enclose a reference 1ist on
which every item is submitted, in preparation, or a private
communication. He will call obscure results by pet names he has
invented himself. And he will describe as ``well known'' results
published only in Old Serbian --- preferably false ones.
Prove trivial results in exhaustive
detail, breaking your proofs into as many lemmas as ou can and
disrupting the line of reasoning with notes, remarks, and asides. On
the other hand, assert difficult proofs. Assert them badly, with a
sneer, if you can manage it. The judicious typographical error in the
statement of your theorem adds a note of drollery to this device.
Never under any circumstances provide a cogent verbal sketch of a proof
that stresses its provocative turns while leaving the obvious unstated.
Never. This alone may get an abstract accepted even if you have
faithfully followed
all the rest of our advice.
As for your language, it
should be pompous, impersonal, drab, and bleary. Work hard at your
grammar. There is no excuse for agreement between subject and predicate
in any sentence of more than ten words. Indefinite referents combined
with false parallels will leave the unwary program committee member
clutching his head and wheeling about the room in confusion. Any
temptation he had to accept your abstract will disappear instantly.
Mind the appearance of your paper,
too. An ancient, faded grey typewriter ribbon is good, but why not try
a fading red one for that extra spark of individuality? Sixteen-pound
paper seems flimsy enough until you realize that you can find twelve
and even less. Why not type on the back of used
second sheets and enclose a sanctimonious note about recycling paper
products? Why not submit a handwritten manuscript --- written in
pencil? Why not have your four-year-old type your paper? And what ever
became of the old-fashioned muddy footprint, the coffee ring, and the
grease smear? You cannot give too much attention to these small
details. They can make the difference between an abstract that is
marginally, reluctantly acceptable and one that will be firmly rejected
year after year. (You should understand that once you have a
soundly accept-proof manuscript you should resubmit it every year. You
will become part of the mythology of your field. As program committee
succeeds program committee, the question will be asked, ``Did you get
Old Whosit's paper again? What's he calling it
this year?'')
A final word: If after adopting all these strategies and developing
several of your own you have a paper accepted anyway, do not despair.
Do not take it personally. The program committee has certain quotas it
must fill. A certain number of papers must be accepted regardless of
merit. Your friends and colleagues will understand, and no one will
hold it against you. Just don't let it happen too often.