• starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    But the comment you replied to wasn’t talking about bike thefts specifically, it was talking about unspecified situations that don’t leave traces. You responded to someone saying that binary search doesn’t work in situations that don’t leave cues not by arguing against the premise (e.g. “but no such event exists, everything leaves cues”), but by telling them that you simply have to look for the cues from the hypothetical event that didn’t leave any.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      but by telling them that you simply have to look for the cues from the hypothetical event that didn’t leave any.

      And my point is that the DID leave a clue that a binary search would pick up on, the disappearance of the bike.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        But it didn’t, because if it did then it would fall under the second paragraph of their comment, where they said that binary search would be useful. The comment isn’t just talking about bike thefts.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          11 months ago

          The comment isn’t just talking about bike thefts.

          The OP is, as well as binary searches. Both are being discussed.

          • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            The OP is, but the comment you replied to isn’t. They expanded on the original post, and said that while binary search is useful in that situation (along with many others), it would be useless in other situations.