Re: [Gzz] hemppah's research problems document

[Tuomas Lukka]

On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 10:53:45AM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
> Quoting Tuomas Lukka <address@hidden>:
> 
> 
> > > > I don't understand this (why there is no upper limit). I would've 
> > > > thought that there's usually an upper limit of O(n^2)-- if all nodes 
> > > > know each other, and thus every node forwards the request to every other
> > 
> > > > node (where it is cancelled, because a node will not process the same 
> > > > lookup twice).
> > > 
> > > I have to check this. Yesterday while writing this document, I didn't find
> > the
> > > article, where authors said that there is "no limit". Have to check...
> > 
> > Hemppah: you *HAVE* to be more critical about the sources; including a
> > statement
> > like that without really knowing what it's saying...
> 
> Yes, this is true. 
> 
> However, as a "rookie researcher", it's quite difficult to be critical, since
> the authors of the articles are, in someway, somekind of authorities for me;
> they have experience, they are (in general) more trained etc. 

That's exactly the thing: the most important thing I've realized in research
is that YOU SHOULD TRUST NO-ONE AS AN AUTHORITY!

No-one. Not even me.

*ALWAYS* doubt whatever someone says, whether it is in an article, personally,
etc. Never take something on faith if you feel you don't really understand
what some argument is based on.

*NEVER* say "ah, but they know so much more than poor little me, they're 
probably
right". 

> Moreover, I have a
> very little experience about "what is good article", "what is not so good
> article" and "what is source critism" etc.

source criticism = the above

Good articles and not good articles: there are many sides to this and it's not
possible really to "grade" articles too well. 

There are some scales though:

well-written   ...   badly written

major, interesting work     ....     trivial rehashing of old ideas

honest, humble about itself     .....    grandiose, claiming to solve all 
problems (or
                                                at least more than it really 
solves).


> > > Yes, I left it intention away. AFAIK, thesis' focus is how a specific data
> > can
> > > be located as fast as possible, if exists in the network.
> > 
> > ? 
> > 
> > Located *and* downloaded.
> > 
> > More like "obtained".
> 
> Okay, will notice it. Btw, in Gzz p2p, is there possibility that there can be
> multiple block sources in the network, altough block has a GUID (so we can 
> take
> a benefit from it when obtaining the block) ?

Possibility? That's the *REASON* for guids!

        Tuomas