From 622076619bda6194dbb5fa535f187d3b9c11365d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mark Seemann Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 07:35:37 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Prepare article for publication --- _posts/2024-04-01-trying-to-fit-the-hype-cycle.html | 2 +- ...-04-08-extracting-curve-coordinates-from-a-bitmap.html | 2 +- ...24-04-22-fitting-a-polynomial-to-a-set-of-points.html} | 8 ++++---- 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) rename _posts/{2024-02-28-fitting-a-polynomial-to-a-set-of-points.html => 2024-04-22-fitting-a-polynomial-to-a-set-of-points.html} (91%) diff --git a/_posts/2024-04-01-trying-to-fit-the-hype-cycle.html b/_posts/2024-04-01-trying-to-fit-the-hype-cycle.html index bac1bd50..6eb34c80 100644 --- a/_posts/2024-04-01-trying-to-fit-the-hype-cycle.html +++ b/_posts/2024-04-01-trying-to-fit-the-hype-cycle.html @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@

As the articles will reveal, the first part went quite well, while the other was, essentially, a fiasco. diff --git a/_posts/2024-04-08-extracting-curve-coordinates-from-a-bitmap.html b/_posts/2024-04-08-extracting-curve-coordinates-from-a-bitmap.html index f94c607f..27641d46 100644 --- a/_posts/2024-04-08-extracting-curve-coordinates-from-a-bitmap.html +++ b/_posts/2024-04-08-extracting-curve-coordinates-from-a-bitmap.html @@ -273,6 +273,6 @@

This was the successful part of the overall exercise. Now onto the fiasco.

- Next: Fitting a polynomial to a set of points. + Next: Fitting a polynomial to a set of points.

\ No newline at end of file diff --git a/_posts/2024-02-28-fitting-a-polynomial-to-a-set-of-points.html b/_posts/2024-04-22-fitting-a-polynomial-to-a-set-of-points.html similarity index 91% rename from _posts/2024-02-28-fitting-a-polynomial-to-a-set-of-points.html rename to _posts/2024-04-22-fitting-a-polynomial-to-a-set-of-points.html index af8ddd4a..6c090e2e 100644 --- a/_posts/2024-02-28-fitting-a-polynomial-to-a-set-of-points.html +++ b/_posts/2024-04-22-fitting-a-polynomial-to-a-set-of-points.html @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ layout: post title: "Fitting a polynomial to a set of points" description: "The story of a fiasco." -date: 2024-02-28 16:33 UTC +date: 2024-04-22 5:35 UTC tags: [Languages] image: "/content/binary/hype-8th-degree-poly.png" image_alt: "Gartner hype cycle and a eighth-degree fitted polynomial." @@ -14,10 +14,10 @@ {{ page.description }}

- This is the second in a small series of articles titled Trying to fit the hype cycle. In the introduction, I've described the exercise I had in mind: Determining a formula, or at least a piecewise function, for the Gartner hype cycle. This, to be clear, is an entirely frivolous exercise with little practical application. + This is the second in a small series of articles titled Trying to fit the hype cycle. In the introduction, I've described the exercise I had in mind: Determining a formula, or at least a piecewise function, for the Gartner hype cycle. This, to be clear, is an entirely frivolous exercise with little practical application.

- In the previous article, I extracted a set of (x, y) coordinates from a bitmap. In this article, I'll showcase my failed attempt at fitting the data to a polynomial. + In the previous article, I extracted a set of (x, y) coordinates from a bitmap. In this article, I'll showcase my failed attempt at fitting the data to a polynomial.

Failure # @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@

I'm not that connected to 'the' research community (if such a thing exists), but I'm getting the sense that there's a general tendency in academia that researchers rarely publish their negative results. This could be a problem, because this means that the rest of us never learn about the thousands of ways that don't work.

- Additionally, in 'the' programming community, we also tend to boast of our victories and hide our failures. More than one podcast (sorry about the weasel words, but I don't remember which ones) have discussed how this gives young programmers the wrong impression of what programming is like. It is, indeed, a process of much trial and error, but usually, we only publish our polished, final result. + Additionally, in 'the' programming community, we also tend to boast our victories and hide our failures. More than one podcast (sorry about the weasel words, but I don't remember which ones) have discussed how this gives young programmers the wrong impression of what programming is like. It is, indeed, a process of much trial and error, but usually, we only publish our polished, final result.

Well, I did manage to produce code to fit a polynomial to the Gartner hype cycle, but I never managed to get a good fit.