No premonition of anything bad that will happen. Just that it is considered being dismissive or disrespectful towards the abstract concept of knowledge and learning. So you say 'sorry' in some way.
One way to pose/(think about) the problem is that there are two finite metric spaces linked by an unknown odometry (damn you autocorrect). The problem is to recover that unknown isometry.
This, like graph isometry, can be very computationally intensive in the worst case. However, heuristics to aid matching one vertex on one graph to another vertex on another graph using local, semilocal structural signatures can be very effective on particular cases.
One can of course argue that the spaces are not designed as metric spaces. Even if true, these might be metrizable topological spaces.
More generally, if these are indeed non-metric spaces one can still pose it as finding the unknown isomorphism between two poset spaces.
In my other comment I was using the property of maximal chains -- Identify the longest chains in both posets. The isomorphism must map the longest chain in Poset 1 directly to a longest chain in Poset 2, preserving the exact linear order.
Let's assume that monotonocity of pair-wise distances are preserved.
Without knowing the details of how the paper solved the problem, my first attempt would be to find the diametrically distant pair of points in the two different embeddings and assume that the pair is the same pair. Then find the next distant pairs and so on.
After sufficiently many such pairs have been found, or better still, the largest d-simplex is found, find that scaled rigid body transformation that makes the corresponding pairs coincide. Proceeding this way ought to be less work than solving a generic graph isomorphism problem.
I think a less stringent, but still workable assumption is that for very similair objects, their distances will be small. This is much easier to accomplish than agreement across all pairs.
Could you explain a bit more. What you say about similar objects is obviously true. However the algorithm sketch that you have in your mind is a little implicit. Could you make it more explicit. I am quite curious.
Fantasys felt so lazy to me. Although sometimes I do enjoy the descriptions. But there is always an escape hatch out of a trouble and one that was not foreshadowed. It is constraints that makes things interesting and especially the higher order consequences of constraints and new tech.
What you described does not qualify as a good fantasy either. There needs to be rules even in the world of magic, and eventually so called hard fiction and fantasy only really differ in the way how they present the fantasies.
There is a book I love: Lord of Light by Roger Zelazny, in which he first wrote about fantasy figures with magic powers in Buddhism tales, and then revealed that they were just humans with high tech and play gods to those who don't.
I understand your curiosity but am glad that this was posted. A Markov chain equipped with a stack is a simple yet powerful combination for text generation. I think we need reminders that simple models can often be adequate and easy to debug and maintain, especially if you have a small team. Bleeds less cash too.
I share your dismay. I grew up under dark skies and whenever I get a chance to watch the dark skies it takes my breath away. Soon we will be limited to watching starlink streaks.
Internet and smart telescopes don't do it for me. For the live feel, it's hard to beat a good pair of binoculars. I atleast get to take them out more often than I would have used a telescope.
That said, astrolabes and sundials and the working of astrolabes and sundials are a delight.
reply