Quote from: notme on June 19, 2013, 03:54:51 AM

Quote from: KS on June 18, 2013, 06:48:17 AM

Quote from: notme on June 17, 2013, 06:37:25 PM

Quote from: brontosaurus on June 15, 2013, 07:04:17 PM

It's called trying to inflate the actual performance of your product and/or design knowledge. If your product is good, quote firm numbers based on hard, verifiable FACTS rather than allude to 'improvements' to a mathematical process which has data dependencies which cannot be changed or improved.

The academics who wrote the paper quoted are experts in their field - Dadda has an adder type named after him - and designed a method of reducing delay paths on an actual asic. They did'nt change or say they could change an algorithm. KNC claim to have an 'improved' algorithm, and that is just plain rubbish. Ask any mathematician.

Any respectable company would not make such ridiculous claims, if KNC have indeed used the methods from this paper in their design,then they should acknowledge it. Hence my annoyance.

Incidentally, Dadda and co. got their SHA256 engine to run at 'a clock speed of well over 1Ghz' on a 130nm process.

I'm a mathematician and I think you are splitting hairs. It may not be acceptable in a mathematical journal, but in common usage it is acceptable to me to label an improved algorithm implementation as simply an improved algorithm. Most people don't know the difference and it conveys the idea that they have some special sauce that makes theirs better than a naive implementation.

Nope, not right. It's not because ppl are ignorant of the jargon that you have to lie to them. If you don't even have the integrity to NOT lie to ppl who don't know what you are talking about...

Get a life. There are much bigger things to worry about than a marketing department reducing a phrase from 3 long words to 2 long words that convey the same exact meaning to 90% of the population.

I think we've discovered here why marketing guys use words that end in -ize (-ise for our friends in the UK). If they said:

"Our wizards use tricks only cool kids know to optimize the run time of the SHA-256 algorithm",

can any of the attendant word smiths take issue with it?

EDIT: Wait, I'm answering my own question. "Optimum" is a superlative; there is only one. To assert something is optimized implies there is no better way to achieve a particular objective. Since that is difficult to establish unambiguously, anyone who would state such is certainly a charlatan.

Tomorrow, on Dancing with the Angels on the Head of the Pin, we'll be discussing the near-criminal practice of claims that various compliers perform "optimization."