You have a talent, please keep doing this and who knows maybe one day you will write a fantastic text book.
I thought "as nice as this is already, what's missing from perfect" and here's what I can say:
- add a few comments on worst-case runtime complexity
- separate section about termination
- I always enjoy pseudo-code being part of an explanation. Your explanation comes from a mathematical point of view, which works very well, and which should be kept, but perhaps after each step in the maths explanation you could add a few lines of pseudocode that "capture" how far you got with the algorithm, e.g. define auxiliary functions like S(•).
But again, these are nitpicky extension proposals to make something already great perfect because I love it, not to criticize it.
PS: I also like your write-up about hidden Open AI models (I always check out what else people did whose output impressed me, and that additional time investment is nearly always worth it).
You have a talent, please keep doing this and who knows maybe one day you will write a fantastic text book.
I thought "as nice as this is already, what's missing from perfect" and here's what I can say:
- add a few comments on worst-case runtime complexity
- separate section about termination
- I always enjoy pseudo-code being part of an explanation. Your explanation comes from a mathematical point of view, which works very well, and which should be kept, but perhaps after each step in the maths explanation you could add a few lines of pseudocode that "capture" how far you got with the algorithm, e.g. define auxiliary functions like S(•).
But again, these are nitpicky extension proposals to make something already great perfect because I love it, not to criticize it.
PS: I also like your write-up about hidden Open AI models (I always check out what else people did whose output impressed me, and that additional time investment is nearly always worth it).