YES, the improvement should be 40,832,277,770%, not what I say in the video. The "408,322,778" multiple was correct and I did the percentage the wrong way. There will not be a follow-up video to correct that.
The improvement was to my code from this video: • Can you find: five fiv...
This is episode 038 of the A Problem Squared podcast which started it all: aproblemsquared.libsyn.com/03...
Here is Benjamin Paaßen's full grid of all results and techniques used. It also has links to all the code as well. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
The article by "encody" I mentioned: / how-to-speed-up-your-c...
This is the reverse-frequency alphabet. Which is frequency in words, not in use (which would allow for frequency of word use; this list counts each word once).
QXJZVFWBKGPMHDCYTLNUROISEA
And whynot, a whole bunch of code. All of it is better than mine. All of it. (Even if you ran it all sequentially.)
Benjamin Paassen [bpaassen]
gitlab.com/bpaassen/five_clique
Sylvester Hesp [oisyn]
github.com/oisyn/parkerwords
Phire [phire]
github.com/phire/five_clique
Neil Coffey [neilcoffey]
github.com/neilcoffey/FunStuf...
Richard Ebeling [He3lixxx]
github.com/He3lixxx/five-word...
Phillip Alday [palday]
github.com/palday/FiveLetterW...
Diggory Blake [Diggsey]
github.com/Diggsey/five_words...
Orson Peters [orlp]
github.com/orlp/matt-parker-f...
Bryan Redd [ae6nr]
github.com/ae6nr/25letters
Pablo Yaggi [pyaggi]
github.com/pyaggi/WordStats
Leonardo Taglialegne [miniBill]
github.com/miniBill/parkerrust
Nathan Baulch [NathanBaulch]
gist.github.com/NathanBaulch/...
Stefan Pochmann [pochmann]
replit.com/@pochmann/5words53...
Jacob [encody]
github.com/encody/jotto-problem
Gé Weijers [gweijers]
github.com/gweijers/wordle_cover
David A. Dalrymple [davidad]
github.com/davidad/five-letters
Alex Recuenco [recuenco_alex]
github.com/alexrecuenco/five_...
Kristin Paget [KristinPaget]
github.com/kristinpaget/fivew...
Ilya Nikolaevsky [IlyaNikolaevsky]
github.com/ilyanikolaevsky/fi...
Cheers to my Patreons for helping enable these videos. Without them test running all that code I'd never know how much better an iPad is than me. I'm sure I'll need Patreon help again soon; you can join the team here: / standupmaths
CORRECTIONS
- Ha, I got the percentage around the wrong way. Should be 40,832,277,770% better.
- Yes, I missed the binary digit for the "A" in "BREAD" and everyone in the live premier chat noticed. Sorry about that. 🍞
- Let me know if you spot any other mistakes!
Filming and editing by Alex Genn-Bash
Some graphics by Benjamin Paaßen
Written and performed by Matt "32 days later" Parker
Music by Howard Carter
Design by Simon Wright and Adam Robinson
Thank you for proposing the challenge Matt! It's been fun! The solution by Landon and myself referenced at the end truly was an effort that involved everyone else already mentioned in some way. That 500us mentioned (currently at 300us now by the way) has its "DNA" from about 10 different people in it. For me, this was as much of a social exercise as it was a mathematical and programming one. Can't wait for the next challenge!
What I want to know is how the file read time was reduced by more than a factor of ten...
A great example of open source success!
@@rmsgrey Multithreading
Mathematics and programming *are* social exercises! :)
@@Exachad if nobody is using memory mapping, then it can still be speed up. Not all languages/OSs support mapping, but it is the fastest way to get data into memory.
As a programmer, there is nothing more emotionally conflicting than when someone appreciates your code wanting to make it better and then humiliating you by optimizing it to ridiculous proportions
If optimising your code make you feel humiliated you have a bad placed ego dude :( It should be amazing
@@camaradearthur3531 It's not about optimizing it, but if like op says, it is optimized to "Ridiculous proportions" you would feel a little bit humiliated, specially if you tried your best
@@lucassXDDD it basically like deadlifting 400Ib and getting congratulated by a dude that then proceeds to deadlift 1000Ib. It hits different then if the dude just lifted 500.
@@writerman2934 Great anology!
@@lucassXDDD Although the feeling of frustration does increase neuroplasticity. So reading the code of the other person while feeling bad about it makes you learn the other method efficiently.
I like how this is basically a speedrun category now
"I just broke the 100% glitchless set-seed parker-word-search wr speedrun!" - competative programmers
I'm looking forward to the Summoning Salt video on this
Parker%, I love it
Now that I think about it... it would be super cool to have a programming "Speed Run" site with sets of problems and then categories for different languages and things with leaderboards... You would have to have rules to make it fair. E.g. Reading from a standard file everyone uses (from RAM?), no pre-processeing allowed, take average of X runs, running on a particular free tier AWS instance hardware type, outputting to screen not disk, etc. You could have folks just upload their code and have the server run it multiple times in a standardized / calibrated / regularly tested sandbox and then post back the time the programmer got onto the leaderboard. Reminds me of Zachtronic games leaderboards.
And that's where the record stands.
The way to get answers on the internet is not to ask for answers, it's to provide the wrong answer and wait for people to correct you.
Reverse Engineering and Reverse Psychology. Going backwards is always the answer.
Trite
This is Karatsuba's law.
@@asheep7797 No, this is actually Murphy’s law
LOL this comment thread is so funny because it proves this law correct. It's actually called Cunningham's Law
Let's be honest, the record here is that he wrote a program that took 20 days to run. That wasn't easy, not even in Python!
No, writing a program that takes ages to run is easy. Having confidence it will finish successfully is the hard bit.
32 days if to be acurate
@@0LoneTech Properly implementing Bogosort is actually really difficult.
@@0LoneTechwhile (true) do if(time > age) then break end And set age to however long you want it to run :P
@@tahunuva4254 That's a lovely way to learn the TIME variable wraps around every 24 hours (e.g. in C64 basic). Similarly surprising, unix gettimeofday doesn't.
Coder: spends a month writing code to complete a task in a millisecond. Parker: just runs code for a month. Result: a tie!
Meanwhile, Web Devs spend too much time coding AND executing…
More like "spends an hour writing code to complete a task in a millisecond". The optimizations listed here are extremely natural and are the kinds of things that show up in basic coding interview questions.
the guy who solved it in a 6.7 miliseconds probably solved it in a few minutes the first time, this was just to flex on how quick he could make it.
So logically, if I spend years, it'll either finish in almost 0 time, or be so fast that I get the answer randomly in the past before I even start coding.
Considering someone got to 900 seconds within one day, I belive the win is clearly on the programmers side.
The smallest length of time that it is possible to run that code in, shall in the future be called Parker Time
I second this motion.
@@WarrenGarabrandt I microsecond this motion.
I picosecond this motion
I femtosecond this motion.
I attosecond this motion
It still baffles me that you were alright with it running for a month. I'd let it run for a few hours tops before I gave up or tried to improve it.
he had to do it for the content
At my lab we have a few computers running very inefficient Matlab code to translate .tif images into a awful million line .csv files that our machine learning collaborator needs for his AI stuff. Right now, a 1600x1600x512 volume is processed overnight and we have roughly a 100 of those. It should take roughly a month for the processing to be done. Honestly, I could sit down for a month and learn C++ good enough to make it run in minutes instead, but like, I have other stuff to do and I took the executive decision that we could afford to sacrifice a workstation for that amount of time. It also helps that it gives me something to report on to my PI at the weekly group meeting while my own experiments are failing lmao
@@garak55 hehe fair enough
@@garak55 Everything about this both horrifies me, and causes me physical pain. My first instinct was to ask why this person would want an image in csv format (and why they outsourced this process to what I'm assuming is the math department), but I fear the answer.
I guess Matt has so many projects and videos and books in various stages of completion that he doesn't care if any particular one is done a month later than it should be. I like to do things one at a time, so having to wait a month until it is done would frustrate me enough to go back and get the program to finish in minutes instead of days or months.
Python is slow, but not THAT slow. There was a pure-Python solution with about 60 lines of code that took 628 ms, which I was able to reduce down to 121 ms with Numba on an old Core 2 Duo E7500 without parallelization. Usually the bottleneck is the algorithm, not the language used.
This was in no way a problem with the language. This was absolutely a problem with his code.
Is the repo public? I'd like to have a look at it
@@silverfire222 There's a link to a spreadsheet in the video description with a bunch of submissions. You can filter by language and sort by execution time. It has links to the source codes too.
@@mad_vegan Thank you!
it'd be interesting to have a 'by compiler' subcategorization too
Seeing the 4,000,000% I immediately thought, "Typical exaggeration. Oh, Stand-Up Maths. It'll be an understatement."
Understatement by quite a bit, it’s 4,000,000 *times* faster, not % faster.
@@weirdboi3375 no, it’s 400 MILLION times faster, not 4.
40 BILLION percent faster, just insane
It’s possible, if your code runs on very low level and his codes takes hundreds of milliseconds
@@zainahmed4172 bro his code took like a month lmfao
"You can save days and days of hard work by just spending a few hours reviewing the pre-existing literature" is Matt's way of saying "just read the docs"
Impressive how he litterally just called out every first-year computer sci student with only one sentence
RTFM
RTFM
@@namef calling out? Finding solutions on your own is a very important skill to have, even if they aren't optimal.
I think it's funny because I've heard the opposite saying in other engineering fields. My thermodynamics professor frequently joked that weeks of literature review and model building can save you hours of lab time lol
Watching the cascade from python to java to c++ to c was so satisfying.
the closer you get to machine code the faster it will be. I'm surprised nobody attacked in straight machine code.
@@japaneserequired6314 That was the implication lol. I would imagine writing this in machine code would not be a challenge with a reward worth the effort, but it would be interesting to witness.
@@japaneserequired6314 Because compilers (no offense) are about 600x better at writing Assembly than you'll ever be at it - even if you started to do nothing else than Assembly programming today until the end of your life. The amount of optimization a compiler bakes into Assembly code has reached such ridiculous levels of complexity (such as division by invariant multiplication and refactoring virtually any math problem as a higher order polynomial) that it's a waste of time to even try competing. Really, you could count on one hand the number of people who even play in the same ballpark as modern compilers and those people usually design said compilers to begin with. You're better off using C or C++ and letting that translate your code into Assembly, even unoptimized C code will be orders of magnitude more efficient than any Assembly code you could ever even conceive of - all thanks to the ridiculoulsy insane amount of optimizations a compiler implements.
@@Finkelfunk that is wishful thinking. Gcc is so full of bugs in code generation, it is crazy.
@@Finkelfunk Nah. I turned compiler optimisation off and it was only about 10% faster. Admittedly, that was an older version of my code which I have sped a lot by fixing memory handling, but I got a similar result from changing my check detection function (Chess engine) from scanning acrossways the entire board in one pass, to doing a pass only to find the king and then scanning radially from him.
This is the craziest Tool Assisted Speedrun progression I've ever seen.
Fr
Btw, this should be a series. Come up with a problem, solve it inefficently, post it to the channel, and run a speed run competition to see who can do it better. That seems like a fun way to learn programming.
I would love that
I would watch this show
upvote!!!
Cunningham's law applied.
This is a proven method to get an answer on technical forums. 1. Ask your question. 2. Switch to an alt account and give a horribly wrong answer. 3. Profit. Nerds may not care enough to answer your question but they will NEVER miss a chance to prove someone wrong.
Remeber kids: No matter who you are, no matter what you do, there's someone on the internet better than you.
Best way to find the right answer is to be wrong on the internet
Yes, but you will also find 100 wrong answers to go along with it, because for each genius gracing us with their presence there are legions of dunning Kruger cretins
In order to become that person that's better than everyone else on the internet, it takes seeing every other single person doing that thing, and still thinking that you can do better.
I'm that person
@@DemoniteBL no you aren’t bro 💀 self proclaimed genius is never accurate
Matt is a stand up guy. His effort was thoroughly and effortlessly destroyed by a hundred hobbyist and full time coders, and he turned it into a math problem to teach people. Truly a legend
I love how I can be in one corner of KZhead where people are taking about computer programming, improving code efficiency just for fun, 30min dives into computing and mathematics… And then I can click away and watch a guy whose entire channel is dedicated to taking the longest bong rips humanly possible. It’s nice, I like this place
Hands down best part of all of this is finding that Matt's definition of "efficient enough" is just < lifetime of the universe
... when it should be, at most, less than the (remaining) lifetime of Matt. Otherwise, no podcast. (-:
Hahaha good enough for a mathematician, he just needs the answer and then the code can be deleted after all, not really worried about performance
I guess he's not concerned about being alive when the computer finally finds the answer.
True mathematician spirit... between now and the end of the universe...
"I have proven a unique solution exists." "what is it? "irrelevant details!"
Never underestimate the obsessive compulsiveness of programmers.
competitive programmers will litterally spend months improving an obsqure and functionally useless program that nobody will ever need to use irl by 0.0000001 milli-seconds
Never underestimate the motivation that can come from wanting to embarrass Matt Parker
Just know that these solutions are actually pretty elementary for programmers and are the type of thing that would show up on an interview for someone fresh out of college.
@@namef Actual competitive programming (or at least a super common modern take on it) is more like spending anywhere between a minute and an hour on a problem (that you have anywhere from no clue to an entirely memorized a solution for) until you either give up because there's an algorithm you haven't read about yet or get code that works and runs under the time requirement. Then forgetting about it and moving on to the next problem - basically going for quantity over quality. But this sort of incremental optimization of a single problem against other peoples solutions sort of like speedrunning I think is way cooler tbh. If you were referring to a specific competition where this sort of quality approach occurs please fill me in.
Nerds* is more accurate, as nerds will try to do loads of things more efficiently.
It's like something my granddad used to say: "It's not about being the smartest, but learning from the smartest to become wiser".
Frustrating that this video is 8 months old and still has no closed captioning. I keep coming back and I still cannot watch it.
The moral of the story is: No matter how hard you optimize, you can't get to the answer faster than Matt because he already finished. :)
Benjamin Passen made it in 50 min on first day, posibly before Matt might even compiled hes code to run it for 32 days, he literaly got results mounth before matt got his own, bruh
@@Mikasey I think you misunderstood. Unless he coded it to run in negative time, it would arrive at the answer after Matt's. Matt's finished running well before June 18th, while Benjamin's started running on June 19th.
@Helge Holm he run it next day after podcast, june 2th 2:10
@@HelgeHolm ah, now i get it, he made calculations before podcast, he just talked about them in it, i for some reason assumed he did stuff on inspiration after the podcast, my bad
@@Mikasey No hire :)
Half my job is "researching the preexisting literature", only to find there was one paper you didn't notice that did what you were doing faster, better, and earlier.
My dad claimed that whenever he had a clever idea and went to do the research two physicists in particular had already published it and he named me in their honor. In my opinion it's more on-brand that when picking a name those two felt "comfortable" and it was only later he realized why they were familiar so created the story after the fact.
Well, that's StackOverflow in a nutshell.
@@privacyvalued4134 true - half of software development is checking stack overflow for someone else who had to do it before XD
@@SharienGaming you know you made it in programming when your problem doesn't exist yet in Stackoverflow
@@ericmarcelino4381 then ive probably made it a couple of times... mostly when i have to deal with something so outdated or obscure that basically no one else has to deal with it XD (or my google-fu was insufficient)
Matt's the type of guy to search for perfect-numbers by checking every integer between 1 and N for divisibility and summing them
i feel as though this should be dubbed "the Parker algorithm" as a nod towards the beloved "Parker square"
Coders who get to that point where they really think outside the box and just come up with these cool solutions are so cool to me.
I would argue it's the complete opposite; they aren't thinking outside the box, they're trying to think as far inside the box (aka the computer) as possible. Programmers are translators, the best answer is the one that is simplest to understand, the clearest explanation with no unnecessary fluff, and requires the least prior knowledge. That means less time trying to figure out what you were trying to say, and more time working on the problem.
However you want to call it, I just want to add that translating the problem into a graph and then running one of the many highly optimized algorithms from that field is a very well known technique. Other examples would be isomorphism and matchings. Definetly very impressive though.
@@williamrutherford553 Yes, agree. I call it "machine empathy" when you know where the bottlenecks are, what the CPU and I/O routines are having to do. Often it doesn't matter but when it does it can make a huge difference to run time.
@@andrewharrison8436 When you know what exactly is the least amount of connected processes necessary to make the most effective solution for the most complex problems. We're truly living the most exciting of times.
@@williamrutherford553 I would argue that you are arguing semantics. Having a profound understanding of the environment you work in allows creative solutions. These are certainly creative solutions and are outside the realm of what a programmer would normally do to run something as silly as this. Thus, outside the box.
As a software engineer, I appreciate your humility. Code, given enough time, can be optimized quite a lot.
You won’t pass a freshgrad job interview in my country with such a method
@@ko-Daegu And once you get that job, you'll lose it if you waste your time pre-emptively optimizing without any business benefit. Keep that in mind too :)
@@ko-Daegu same.
This is my favourite video you have ever released. Please do more of this type. It is super interesting, even if people like me have no coding experience, your explanation is so clear we can understand it.
For me, the part starting around 9:25 describing the differences in algorithms was the most interesting part. As a general rule, if you can simplify any problem to bitmasks and bitwise operations (especially and, or and xor), it will run really really fast on practically any CPU. And it turns it applies to here, too.
Now I want someone to port the fastest code to graphical calculator and see if it would still run faster than Matt's time
My thought was a BBC micro. If one of those could beat his time, that would be amazing.
Im pretty sure desmos could do so with ease. No idea about getting a ti80 series to do it. Most of the time would be spent reading words from another computer and compressing them into an abstract set of bits.
@@simonwillover4175 I mean, a TI84+ can run Doom. It's probably possible without needing another device.
@@Mikowmer Probably not enough memory in a ti84+ but I recon the newer ez80 based calculators have a chance of working.
@@mattsadventureswithart5764 or a commodore 64
I've heard of KZheadrs leaving minor mistakes in their video (e.g. misspellings) to provoke people commenting corrections as an engagement hack. Matt is taking this to another level by releasing optimisable code that provokes so much engagement he even gets a whole new video out of it! Genius move 😅
He added a mistake in the title (compared to the number he gave in the beginning of the video) to boot!
@@y_fam_goeglyd the title is correct. The number he gave in the intro was supposed to be a multiple, not a percent. He said the same number again a moment later as "bunchofnumbers times faster"
Is that why he claimed 400 million times faster was 4 million % faster at the start of the video? Cuz I still havent figured out that one.
He did that here too. "Paralyzed computing."
Beautifully explained! Congrats to the people who optimized the solution so much!
Absolute love this. Thank you for to all for doing this just because you can. Love it.
I remember someone once telling me that "if you problem is hard enough, you eventually stop trying to compute a solution and you compute how long it takes to obtain a solution." The last time I did that I concluded that my code would run for 12 days. Mentally, I thought, "That gives me 12 days to think of a better approach." By the next morning I thought of a different algorithm that was successful in about 0.1s!
XKCD - number 1205 I used that to show why I wrote a program that converted a boring & repetitive manual process that normally took two hours, into a program that took 5 minutes total (and this was including manually entering the data into the program and grabbing the results). This process had to be done 2-3 times a month, so me taking 8 hours to intermittently write and debug was worth it. I also made it use an external Parm file so it would be easy to update over time.
@@toddkes5890 That XKCD strip comes up at least once a month at work. I maintain a CI/CD pipeline and we're constantly spitballing automation improvements that might cut down on the manual work.
@@ford9501 I feel like a lot of my coworkers violate this XKCD comic constantly. Spending weeks or months trying to optimize something that takes 5 mins of labor and only needs to be done about once a month or every other month.
@@toddkes5890 Then the greedy upper management just gave you heaps more work to do instead of a raise or promotion or other credit?
@@coopergates9680 Actually that manager was decent and just smiled at the improvement. Of course the lookup file had to be updated nearly every time meant it wasn't perfect, so that might have helped out.
Thank you for the video of calculated leadership on creating improvement(PCQI). Aside from achieving great results, you are plotting the moment to a details channel that opens the path cross the next step in problem solving/improvement. Hope for a good 2023 for all.
I was waiting for someone to submit code in assembly
And yet none of that hyper-efficient code would likely exist today... if not for Matt. The catalyst. The inspiration. The legend.
The Parker Programming!
One day Matt will find a halfway solution to the Riemann Hypothesis just to "give it a go", and then 3 months later a viewer will have solved completely to spite him
The Parker Effect!
@@EngineerLume what does it mean can you explain?
@@johnwickgaming3118 Watch the Numberphile Parker Square video
500 microseconds is 660 times faster than an average blink of the eye or just about the speed that a thought can pass the brain. Incredible.
You can't even let go the enter key that fast.
I think we need to switch units here. In the time the program ran light traveled less than 150 kilometers (in a vacuum), less than the length of the M25 around London
it cant be faster than my thoughts because i dont have any
I didn't know there were speed-running categories in math lol
As someone starting out in programming, this stuff is amazing to look up to!
That has to be the best example of optimization I've ever seen.
So it would seem
Meh, seen better.
@@barongerhardt yeaaaah ive seen that as well, though the improvement are usually on the scale of 3-4 orders of magnitude (i think the biggest ive seen before was 6)... this was improvement of 9 orders of magnitude... thats kinda crazy... though to be fair, our code and datastructures generally dont start that bad
I remember years back of hearing a story about someone who got a job to implement a saving system for a long running process (like a week or so) because it sometimes broke during execution - sort of like saving Matt's progress every day or so until the program had finished. Instead the programmer spent a bit of timedays optimising the application to make it run in under an hour. Making the thing run 100x faster meant the whole saving was unnecessary, and was instead transformative for the business as they could get results so much faster. Now it wasn't running billions of times faster like in this situation, but it's still a great story that had actual impact.
@@MSheepdog 36 hrs down to 2hrs:10min... got the customer to sign off on releasing a held payment of $14M in 1985 :) We were happy to acknowledge receipt of that check - the CEO sent me a nice memo for my part interfacing between customer and a college intern (I pointed a lot of potential improvements to him) ...
As a C++ guy, this makes me want to find a way to do this entirely at compile time, leading to a (runtime) speed of however long it takes to print 500 words.
I was going to say you couldn't [portably] read the input file at comptime so it wouldn't be a valid comparison buttt depending on the input format maybe you could #include it directly... if it's comma separated that would totally work
and from there you just have to write thousands of lines of template hell and wait a few weeks for it to build i'll leave that bit to you
Yeah, if you start codegenning, there won't be much of the challenge left, eh?
Easy, the words could be easily encoded into the program file itself using a static storage buffer. Near-instant execution.
Feel free to change the metric so that you measure both compile time and runtime. Then you can compete, and you will find that your solution will perform (relatively) poorly -- the preprocessor is not known for being fast.
It's incredible how dramatically extreme (and even simple) optimizations can have on efficiency of code and algorithms. I used to be heavily into this kind of stuff during my computer science degree (Not so much since I got a job actually programming)
Love this kind of content. I've been a developer in the ERP space since the early 1990s. Good software development is such an iterative process that starts with "just make it work" and evolves to "now make it work better." Far too often I run across code where they stopped at "just make it work" and no thought was put into thinking about the "ility"s...scalability, portability or flexibility.
Rust enjoyers (like me) were so close from being able to brag about Rust being BLAZINGLY FAST
Blazingly fast doesn't have to be fastest. Rust is definitely blazingly fast. :)
I believe Rust/c/c++ can all reach the same runtime performance for any given problem. High performance code in either language is often written by consulting the generated assembly and tweaking the code until the desired assembly is reached. The difference is going to be in development time, maintainability, safety, compatibility, etc.
It makes sense not to find rust the fastest Simply cuz rust devs are not that many + Many of the crazy optimization guru use C++
The task of comparing the presence of letters in different words is a perfect fit for evil bitwise hack languages like C, though. Rust's whole thing is that it's the fastest memory-safe language. Meaning that its performance is not as important a feature as its reliability even in very large codebases that took a long time to develop.
I was perusing the spreadsheet and realized that the main difference between the best two solutions (Rust vs C)was that the C one was parallelized. Which is kind of hilarious given that Rust makes parallelizing generally easier lol. Then I took a look at miniBill's Rust solution and he seems to be preparing to parallelize his code, so maybe we'll catch up!
In 2007 I was developing a service for a major multinational mobile operator. My initial algorithm took 22 minutes to run for places in downtown Athens (very high cell coverage) After a tiny improvement in the code and changing the way the data was stored in Oracle spatial for the same coordinates it took 800 ms. Needless to say I was very happy that day.
It's a great feeling
Good job. 22 minutes is 1320 seconds is 1320000ms, knocking that down to 800ms is a factor of 1650.
@@cxpKSip I wanted to write a paper on it because my point in polygon implementation was insanely faster but the company asked me not to do it
@@asicdathens Did they not let you because other companies could then begin to compete in that service? Or some other reason?
@@jasonb.9790 The competition tried to create something similar when the service was launched. The main competitor CosmOTE paid 700000 Euros to a Finnish company to make something similar. My problem was I couldn't load cell coverage rasters into Oracle spatial (10gR2) and I had to use vectors (shapefiles). If you do point in polygon to shapes that have 60000-100000 edges (cell coverage) the built in Oracle spatial point in polygon algorithm takes forever.
Lots of fun here. I am blown away by the idea of starting the calculations before all the data is read in. Talk about thinking outside the box!
Brilliant! Thankyou Matt and Thankyou patrons.
"Very rarely will Python go into production" *laughs in machine learning*
laughs in Matrix-Synapse
Laughs in Lambda functions, DJango, Flask, and Database automation
I came down here to comment this hahaha
Laughs in KZhead
Laughs in Django
It goes to prove Matt, as a programmer you are a great mathematician...
“Matt was an average programmer but he was a BRILLIANT MATHEMATICIAN!”
@@iantaakalla8180 Here's a little challenge where Matt should know a : // A 5 GHz CPU will take over 48 years to produce a result uint64_t a = 0, b = 1, n = 7678603279843596748 >> 1; while(n--) b += a += b; // {no overflow checks} uint64_t s[] = {a, 0}; std::cout
That bitwise anding technique is brilliant! :) Bit-ops usually are, it's almost like a whole other field of maths.
I like the first one i love the mix up of the vocals Both were excelent and thank you all fir breaking down which sounds and how u did it
Step 1 in my process for solving algorithmic challenges is "Does Knuth have a solution for that?". A lot of the time the answer is YES. Absolute legend.
I am greatly impressed with how unprecious Matt is about his Python code (which was completely correct, just computationally expensive) and how delighted he is by the community response
"computationally expensive" - I love this phrase, sometimes maths and coding terms can be just so satisfyingly descriptive and tickle my brain 😁 Also, agree with your comment!
This is a very valuable video and topic. This all reminded me of PoC or GTFO. It really shows what can be accomplished on an individual vs group effort or a friendly challenge/competition.
This video has been rolling around in my recomended, and I kept ignoring it because I thought the title was clickbait. I got so happy when I saw the results😂
I cannot overstate how much it frustrates me that when you're discussing bitwise AND that you don't have the columns lined up and in monospace...
Yup. I like to keep my notes well organized, so I type up everything I can in Notepad using 12 pt Lucida Console (Courier is acceptable too, but not my first choice).
Also, bread has an a.
@@Kwauhn. I mean, not all the text needs to be monospace, but bitwise operations make the most sense with consistent columns.
@@MudakTheMultiplier I know haha, just giving my anecdote about monospace fonts. They do make formatting plain text easier.
Also saying "the 1's bit is A, the 2's bit is B, [...] and so on" then labelling the most significant bit on-screen as A....
My favorite part is how Benjamin says in the spreadsheet "Just for reference! I did not actually run this implementation." Basically couldn't be bothered, only an insane person would run this lol
I'm actually a bit curious to see how long it would have taken, if he'd run it. Matt's run was done, iirc, on an old laptop; it's quite likely that Benjamin's testing hardware is significantly faster. (It would probably still be so slow that it's not worth the bother, but an interesting thought none the less.)
@@mnxs That's a good point.. now I am tempted to run it..
At the HDQRS, the expert (exptl) team analyzed the fconv data while discussing the rare sighting of a muzjik in the area, leaving everyone, including the usually gawby intern, deeply intrigued.
Thank you all for sharing the code! It really is much appreciated.
I love how reminiscent of Alan Turing's work on the Enigma this is. A bunch of people working together to try and optimize the solution to a linguistics problem through a mix of clever computer manipulation and even more clever maths. Absolutely brilliant!
I'm glad you pointed that out, it really shows how much smart people working together in a competative environment can accamplish
@@namef But not just a competitive environment - an open and friendly competitive environment. I work in a closed competitive environment (working for a corporation competing against other corporations for market share) and much of the state of the art is stale because everyone has to first learn each other's previous mistakes and current best approaches. We even know that some of our markets are relatively safe because the cost of somebody entering it (learning all that we learned the hard way) is simply too much to do against an existing competitor. In an open, collaborative environment like this where people share their methods and learn from each other's mistakes, that's where progress is made. That's what science, academia, and even patents were originally about - bringing knowledge into the public sphere where others could work with it and learn from it.
"Very rarely Python code goes into production" - Matt Parker, 2022 A mathematician's perspective , I guess.
I think coders coding code to speed run a problem is a awesome idea
i waited to watch this vid until after I did it, took like 8 hours but I went for graph theory in Python w/ pruning anagrams: runs in < 1s but doesn't get all combinations it just finds the easiest ones
18:50 "Very rarely will Python go into production". As a Python programmer, having worked in 3 of the most major animation studios in Europe, I can attest that Python code does go into production, and it can be just as reliable as other languages, if not even more because of its readability, making it easier to understand for the people manipulating the code (the developers). We use it to build plugins, to automate repetitive tasks, inside the software used by the artists, such as for instance opening and saving the scene in the right place in the complex folder structure. But I do understand where you're coming from. If you're working on a piece of code that needs performance, one example in our area would be the rendering engine, then you need a lower level language such as C/C++, which are indeed optimized for performance.
Very well put. For high-performance computing, the cycle is as Matt described, but the vast majority of software development is not high performance computing. Your machine learning framework might be written in Rust, C or C++, but you interact with it using Python because it's easier.
@@imai_kinami Yeah, great example :)
Just a thing Matt, if you ever read this, great video man! I really appreciate your passion for these things! And it's a great exercise you've sparked, and it's nice that you took the time to compile the results for us in this video. I'm saying this because my comment was a bit easy to make, I feel a bit guilty about that. Hope you don't mind too much :)
The second he said Python doesn't go into production, I could feel the existence of this comment.
@@alxjones That's what makes it both a good (generates likes) and a bad (too obvious) comment.
It's fair enough for Matt to say his code was "good enough" when it turns out it wasn't buggy and gave the right answer; if it took 30 days to crash or give an obviously wrong result (very possible) it would be a different story. Personally when it didn't finish after 5 or 10 minutes I would have intervened haha, computers are stupendously fast these days!
Indeed. The optimizations are impressive, but the most impressive thing to me was the fact that Matt had the patience to wait a month for the computer to give him an answer😁
Great video! Missed the premiere but I'm glad I can watch the VozHD
I love someone made podcast and it turned into competition
I remember in my first year of applied computer science, we got the task to find all prime numbers between 0 and some number. At first you write code and are so happy seeing it finding the right answers. We got that same assignment several times throughout the year. It was so fascinating seeing the improvement in coding and algorithms to get that same task done in just a fraction of the time it took you the last time.
Yes, there's a set of problems that should be included in all beginner level classes about algorithms and that is one of them.
@@chrisdawson1776 🤡 "🤓"
This is such a neat resource! I'll try to apply it some time in the future
_It doesn't matter how fast you get the wrong answer!_ /s Sadly too many programmers are ignorant that there are 3 types of optimizations (from slowest to fastest): * Bit-twiddling (focus on bit hacks and other clever optimizations) * Algorithmic (focus on O(n) complexity) * Data-Oriented Design (focus on minimizing cache misses) Computer Science typically focus on O(n) complexity. It is an OK place to start but a bad place to end. i.e. Two algorithms can have the same exact O(n) but in practice one can be 16x times slower! Andrei Alexandrescu gave an interesting talk _Sorting Algorithms: Speed Is Found In The Minds of People - Andrei Alexandrescu - CppCon 2019_ where invented a new sorting algorithm (!) along with showing that the standard way we measure sorting performance is incomplete (!!). We should be measuring sorting with (C(n) + M(n) + kD(n))/n where Everyone should start with a (slow) reference version. The act of writing it helps you understand the problem. Then you can start applying optimization techniques. For example my first version of this solver took 20 minutes. The second version took 2 minutes. The third version took 2.5 seconds.
Nice that's a good touch from the teacher.
My favorite part about this is that one of the people who made one of these improved versions is Stefan Pochmann, the inventor of one of the most prolific methods for solving a rubik's cube while blindfolded. You sure have quite the audience!
Ah, of course, he's one of the biggest names in the field of solving a Rubik's cube while blindfolded, something that I totally knew existed before just now.
And his version is 18 lines of python which run in a handful of seconds. He wins, as far as I am concerned.
when the video should be over but you're only 1/3 of the way through, love it.
The quick brown fox.. was actually used in teletype communications a lot. It tested both the baudot code papertape reader at the sending end and the receiving end papertape puncher for proper operation. The human operator would see at a glance whether the transmission was received ungarbled. Back in the day this type of communication took place over HF analog radio
and the dog kept being lazy.. never got that out of him
@@RoelandJansen I always thought it should've been a cat, but the alphabet is badly designed
@@trueriver1950 yeah you are right . four lazy cats here and one dog, supposedly on meth or something
You would be surprised how much your recreational math helps out coders. Sometimes we just need to look at code from different angles and every little bit of novel mathematics we discover improves our flexibility. Thank you Matt.
4:30 Don't feel bad that you can't beat experts in their own field. Pat yourself on the back because you have the ability to valiantly participate in *_every_* field.
The mantra of the polynerd.
its hard to see somebody doing your code faster like this, 5 billion times, fml, great video, best wishes!
Amazing to see how people optimised this!
This is why the open-source community is so valuable to humanity. Seriously. Great job guys! There is always a smarter geek! I seriously love this community. It isn't about being the best, it is about learning from the best -- and there is plenty of best to go around in this community. In my profession (software engineering) there is a common expression "standing on the shoulders of giants." It basically means that whenever I write an amazing piece of code, a lot of the inspiration for that code rests in the accomplishments from those who came before me. And if I go my entire life and only find one or two new novel ways of doing something, the only thing I would want is for my accomplishments to be used in future code and made even better.
IMO its rarely about a 'smarter geek' - as there are heaps of people of similar intellectual capacity involved and the best method concepts may well come from the 'stupidest' among them. What is magic is the collaboration and speed of evolution that creates. It means that concept from our 'stupidest' -- the artists/linguist types with no mathematical skills at all can have good ideas nobody else in the 'room' has come up with and possibly never would - different perspectives can be powerful thing. And that person's idea can be picked up and polished and evolve rapidly through the iterations of the more skilled number theory and computer science types.
7:36 he said it was behind a patreon pay wall, wyta open source
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants is 800 years old. And it remains as true, indeed.
YES ,besides papyrus which is smoke
Open-source works best when there is a clear specific problem with a "known" optimal goal outcome, like in this video. But open source development kind of breaks down for things like "what is the best user-interface" or "best workflow" which are more vague and up to interpretation. I mean look at something like GIMP :\
at this point, the initial statement "I wrote some terrible code" is an understatement.
"I wrote the most horrifying code known to humanity" I think this fits
This feels more like, Cunningham's Law at this point.
This is an excellent example of how technology has helped us make such giant leaps forward since the dawn of automatic computing. Because of coding and improvements to that code, along with improvements to the hardware that runs the code, this is how the device we carry in our pockets is far more powerful than the computers that got us to the moon and back. What used to take months, now takes seconds, what used to take seconds now takes fractions of a second, etc.. Awesome stuff.
the internet is an amazing resource. Y’all are talented
I definitely think “gunpowdery blacksmith” is more satisfying than “showjumping veldcraft”. I also would guess that “veld” and “fjeld” are etymologically related, which makes me wonder if you can have a “vord”. EDIT: I do concede that "showjumping veldcraft" describes The Lion King.
"Veldcraft" sounds Dutch somehow.
_veld_ and _fjeld_ aren't etymologically related, with the former coming from Proto-Germanic ∗felþą, and the latter coming from Proto-Germanic ∗falisaz.
@@zapfanzapfan In all likelihood. The Dutch did have African colonies, and both Dutch and Norwegian are Germanic languages.
@@miners_haven how about veld and field? I can't be wrong here
@@SpencerTwiddy yes, they are indeed etymologically related
As a programmer by trade, I want to push back a bit on the "python isnt for production and lower level languages are more robust" Python is a very safe language in the sense that you won't get memory leaks or segfaults, unlike C or C++. Where you do run into problems (with large applications) is type mismatches and silent failures that always plague dynamically typed languages. This is a big reason why most applications these days that need to be somewhat performant but more importantly need to be very robust, are written in C# or Java, since those languages are both memory safe _and_ type safe. Side note: Rust also is memory safe and type safe, with the speed of C, which is why its caught on so widely and quickly in the last decade. The main sacrifice that Rust makes is that its compiler is very strict, so its harder to learn and harder to program. But that's worth it for many people in many applications! Python is also used in production all the time for what it's supposed to be: a scripting language. Python scripts are great for setting environments up or automating file manipulation. And perhaps the biggest thing of all is that python is a great tool as an orchestrator of highly performant C libraries. Most famously this takes place with machine learning frameworks, where you can write python code that leverages CUDA and C libraries to do incredibly efficient and incredibly parallel computation. Loved the video!
Python is also great as a "glue" language between APIs and databases. Think integrating multiple services between different companies, and providing new, combined products.
I am also a programmer, and I have worked on a production Python codebase. I still agree with Matt's assessment.
I don't know about anyone else, but I like it when compilers stop me from making mistakes.
@@andrew_ray If you haven't tried it yet, you should check out Haskell! The type sytem is so great that it's often said that "if it compiles, it works".
@@andrew_ray typescript FTW!
Thanks - that was great fun. I'm a fan of code optimization and often we found software optimization of 1 or 2 orders of magnitude was pretty easy to achieve. This story ticked me over the edge to subscribe.
Amazing, the effort and time people put into it. And the results! Reminds me of a puzzle that was put in our almanak. Took several days of calculating to create. The only person to solve it did it in 0.2 seconds if I recall correctly. (10x10x10 cube, 351 blocks forming a path through the cube (was supposed to be 350) and the input were three 10x10 grids with sums of the number of blocks along the X, Y and Z axis). Always wanted to have a crack at it, but never got the convenient input files. And I'm too lazy to go and find that almanak in a box somewhere :D
Back in the 80's I wrote a program in BBC basic to allocate pupils to classes. At 'A level' there were 5 'bands'. p,q,r,s,t. Band p for example could have subjects maths, physics, chem, etc. There were about 7 subjects per band. A pupil would choose 3 or 4 subjects, and the job was then to see if there was a band that had all their choices. Ideally all 220 pupils would be accommodated. If there were too many failures then the subjects in each band could be rejigged. Also, the numbers of pupils allocated to each band should be roughly similar. I wrote the program for 8 bit BBC B micros. It worked but took a few days for each run. (BBC basic is an interpreted language and very slow.) Then the 32 bit Acorn Archimedes came out. I tried the program on it and it was not much faster. I then had one of the few genuine flashes of inspiration in my career, and realised that instead of subjects being represented as strings, each one could be just a single bit in a 32 bit word. I rewrote the program and tried it. It ran in 1 minute 30 seconds. Bitwise ANDing Matt called it. I then used that technique in many other programming problems. It works!
I couldn't code my way out of a box, but I can still very much appreciate this competitive coding. Good job, Matt.
while True: if boxExists == False: remove_box() break else: continue
while true: print "Help Im stuck in this box"
@@benjaminaharon460 while True: print ("Help, I'm stuck in this box!")
I second this comment 👍 and I also appreciate the coding replies to it very much 😂
Ask for help from step bro
I love your channel, I think something that could improve your visuals would be to use a fixed width font so that digits line up, it was especially noticeable in the segment where you were lining up binary numbers for the bitwise and segment. Keep making great videos! Thanks!
I am very anti-Python but you sold it short. You will definitely find Python code in production. And there are ways to make Python safer like using mypy for static typing.
I'm also anti-python.
Python kinda mid ngl
The fact that your viewers found a new solution to an old problem makes me wonder: Why not pose an old problem once a year, which hasn't been solved yet? A problem which you find interesting and would enjoy creating a video about. Who knows, with the kind of talent I saw today, your viewers just might answer an age old question. Perhaps ask the channel which sorts of things they'd like to learn more about that has a component which hasn't been solved yet. Great job as always, Matt; I look forward to the next one.
Just drop them as homework. "... In statistics, Dantzig solved two open problems in statistical theory, which he had mistaken for homework after arriving late to a lecture by Jerzy Neyman." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Dantzig
@@VainoOskariAstala81 that reminds me of the guitarist Buckethead hearing a tape guitar virtuoso Shawn Lane had made by splicing together snippets of audio, inspired by Conlon Nancarrow's piano roll compositions, and then very nearly learning to play it, thinking that Shawn Lane had actually played it straight.
"Why not pose an old problem once a year, which hasn't been solved yet?" ooh ooh do racism
@@nokenwari If we can crowd source a solution to racism via 'putering then you'll make a lot of people very happy - for the five seconds necessary for humanity to find something else to be bigoted about. In the meantime what about the four colour map problem?
I once inherited code that was partly a SQL stored procedure (previous programmers enjoyed using cursors where-ever possible). It was fine for a few categories and detail sections on a database with only 10,000 records and looking at a regional subset of said data. Over the years (10 years later), it ballooned to something like a dozen categories and detail sections on a database of over 100,000 records in the main table (with literally millions of records elsewhere), searching for ALL data instead of regional. This code took well over 24 hours to run (Me: "Whhhyyyy????? Why would you use the report in ways for which it was never intended? lol") - and would time out during peak hours. First iteration, I got rid of the cursors, and did a clean main query/subquery temporary tables (the cursors used the same (15-20+ table) queries 13 times with 1 or 2 criteria changes), and got it down to 30 minutes (2 hours in peak hours) before removing the cursors, and maybe up to 5 seconds after removing them. The next bottleneck is that the detail code was being run 3,000 to 5,000 times separately (the entire render of the report page took 1-2 seconds per each 10 millisecond long query). "Ah ha!" (The previous reporting tool we used rendered reports a bit differently) I then thought, "Fine! I'll just load the two queries into my compiled .NET DLL code and feed the datasource as needed!". Report run time was now 2 or 3 seconds (that's the shortest time it takes any report to render, regardless of querying time). To this day, that refactoring is still my favorite.
Congratulations! That's a great result. Also, congratulations on having managers/executives willing to let you spend time on that (even if it IS your actual job). Most companies would be "eh, it's annoying but it works, and it's not worth spending time/money on improving it."
@@falconerd343 It's state government. Great work athmosphere where I work, actually.
Then you spend another week or two deciding how to roll out these improvements, so your 24 hrs > 2 seconds improvement happens over a 10-20 year career. E.g. before each performance review, knock another hour off the run time.
@@falconerd343 "If the piece of QWERTY does what it's supposed to, no matter how cumbersome it is to use, and how much system resources it gobbles up, it ain't broken, don't fix it."
I've got to be honest, this exponential improvement based on the crowd adaptive innovation on display here is the only thing that gives me comfort as to our long term prospects. Regardless of the specifics, I trust that together we will be able solve our problems as long as we continue to collaborate together when it matters...
I'm happy I got to the idea of bitwise mathematics before you showed it. :)
I think it's interesting to see the rapid development of improved code, and how long each program took to run after the amount of time passed from the original piece of code. It's kind of similar to Moores law. If you show the world inefficient code, theyll make it 40,000,000,000 times more efficient in 2 days. I think we'll call it "Parker's law"
Correction: You mean Cunningham's Law, where you post the wrong solution online so someone else can correct you and- oh my god
is parkers law, when you are giving it a go but your solution is so slow that someone else can learn about the problem, improve the code and run it to get a solution before your code even produces a result?
@@raffimolero64 was that a reference to Parker's Squares?
@@raffimolero64 lol great comment
This video is a testament to the potential power of open source. Your code got improved millions of times thanks to the community effect. Amazing!!!
Stuff like this is why I love coding and its community
What's fun is that there's probably a lot of optimization left, as sub 7 ms was achieved without Assembly optimization.
Engineers after the podcast: "32 days??? that's ridiculous, let me try that..." "15 minutes??? that's ridiculous, let me try that..." "6 seconds??? that's ridiculous, let me try that..." "3 seconds??? that's ridiculous, let me try that..." "1 seconds??? that's ridiculous, let me try that..." "477 ms??? that's ridiculous, let me try that..." "6.761 ms??? that's ridiculous, let me try that..."
I love this. I used to hang around in programming discord servers and it was not uncommon to see this situation happen again and again.
@@ChicDead26could you suggest me some good programming discord servers my good sir
@@pandemicyear4091 sorry bud, but once again, "used to"
Matt "32 days later" Parker [square]
My favorite part of this is that everyone who furthered the record had difficult names for him to pronounce. That's great.
Implies the brightest families are not nearby or abundant, otherwise their names would be familiar - is that great?
Europeans/nords people are built different as SWE
The part you were describing at the end about executing the code before it's all been read in is called cache management, and it's how I optimized a process for updating QA (quality assurance) machines at a software dev company to stay up to date with the latest version of the software to test, from a previous 45-minute "refresh" of the fully-deployed software, to a virtually instantaneous time (sub 1ms), saving well over a hundred thousand hours of people's time by now I assume.