in reply to Re: [OT] The interesting problem of comparing bit-strings.
in thread [OT] The interesting problem of comparing bit-strings.

The funny think here, is that you are almost right. There are better ways to search for a bitstring than just the brute-force one.

Unfortunately, that one you are "outlining" is not one of them. Also, you should have already learned that you can not trust your instinct about probabilistic matters (well, at least, not about that).

  • Comment on Re^2: [OT] The interesting problem of comparing bit-strings.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: [OT] The interesting problem of comparing bit-strings.
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 27, 2015 at 21:35 UTC
    There are better ways to search for a bitstring than just the brute-force one.

    Care to expand?

    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked
[reply]
      Several (most?) string-search algorithms can be adapted to work on bitstrings. For instance, if your data is mostly random, Boyer-Moore is going to perform quite well and eliminate most of the bitstring comparisons.
[reply]

        Betcha can't prove it! (How can you possibly build a frequency table, when bits have no boundaries?)

        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom