frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Open Source @Github

fp.

Astronomers may have found the first exomoon

https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2610/
62•MarcoDewey•53m ago•30 comments

Private healthcare makes industries less innovative. It's time for change

https://werd.io/private-healthcare-makes-industries-less-innovative-its-time-for-change/
52•benwerd•1h ago•25 comments

Software rendering in 500 lines of bare C++

https://haqr.eu/tinyrenderer/
18•mpweiher•38m ago•1 comments

AI Companies Are Trying to Hide a Staggering Amount of Debt

https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-companies-hide-debt-off-balance-sheet
142•technewssss•1h ago•70 comments

Scanning for Pangram Errors

https://veryfineprint.substack.com/p/scanning-for-pangram-errors
39•jsnell•6d ago•21 comments

The Telegarden (1995-2004)

https://goldberg.berkeley.edu/garden/
14•zetamax•2d ago•1 comments

Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a5fdc7a-d6f8-83e8-bbea-8deb42cfed56
1017•gmays•21h ago•584 comments

Cruller: Bun's Zig Runtime, Continued on Zig 0.16

https://ziggit.dev/t/cruller-buns-zig-runtime-continued-on-zig-0-16/16734
121•Erenay09•9h ago•80 comments

Writing by Hand is Good for your Brain

https://nealstephenson.substack.com/p/writing-by-hand-is-good-for-your
20•dwwoelfel•31m ago•1 comments

Quality non-fiction books are the antithesis of AI slop

https://resobscura.substack.com/p/quality-non-fiction-books-are-the
450•benbreen•1d ago•220 comments

The Unity CLI: manage Unity from your terminal

https://unity.com/blog/meet-the-unity-cli
47•nateb2022•1d ago•14 comments

Alphabet's cash burn raises alarm for Big Tech as AI spending climbs

https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/alphabets-cash-burn-raises-alarm-big-tech-ai-spe...
166•1vuio0pswjnm7•1h ago•157 comments

Escape IntelliJ: Scala and Kotlin LSPs on Emacs Eglot

https://jointhefreeworld.org/blog/articles/emacs/emacs-eglot-scala-kotlin/index.html
117•jjba23•2d ago•93 comments

Everyone should know SIMD

https://mitchellh.com/writing/everyone-should-know-simd
545•WadeGrimridge•21h ago•197 comments

Show HN: Bento - An entire PowerPoint in one HTML file (edit+view+data+collab)

https://bento.page/slides/
937•starfallg•23h ago•214 comments

GigaToken: ~1000x faster Language model tokenization

https://github.com/marcelroed/gigatoken/
578•syrusakbary•21h ago•115 comments

Are AI labs pelicanmaxxing?

https://dylancastillo.co/posts/pelicanmaxxing.html
623•dcastm•21h ago•236 comments

Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html
151•acmnrs•13h ago•89 comments

ANSI escape injection in MCP servers: Hidden from humans, visible to AI

https://brightsec.com/research/detecting-ansi-escape-sequence-injection-in-mcp-servers-with-dast/
42•xgpyc2qp•2d ago•22 comments

Test-time training 3D reconstruction

https://github.com/Inception3D/TTT3R
21•soupspaces•1w ago•1 comments

Making

https://beej.us/blog/data/ai-making/
413•erikschoster•23h ago•169 comments

The startup's Postgres survival guide

https://hatchet.run/blog/postgres-survival-guide
471•abelanger•1d ago•206 comments

Amiga 1000: Ten years ahead of its time

https://dfarq.homeip.net/amiga-1000-ten-years-ahead-of-its-time/
136•giuliomagnifico•9h ago•120 comments

Frequently Asked Questions on Expertise

https://jtpeterson.substack.com/p/faq-on-expertise
27•surprisetalk•3d ago•2 comments

Show HN: Cactus Hybrid: We taught Gemma 4 to know when it's wrong

https://github.com/cactus-compute/cactus-hybrid
169•HenryNdubuaku•20h ago•37 comments

John C. Dvorak has died

https://twitter.com/na_announce/status/2079952538040672302
858•coleca•19h ago•287 comments

Making ASCII Art in Vim

https://alexyang.dev/vim-ascii-art/
102•evakhoury•2d ago•12 comments

Malleable Computing, Emacs, and You

http://yummymelon.com/devnull/malleable-computing-emacs-and-you.html
134•kickingvegas•17h ago•38 comments

Businesses with ugly AI menu redesigns

https://blog.fiddery.com/businesses-with-ugly-ai-menu-redesigns/
349•speckx•1d ago•270 comments

Nobody knows what a used GPU cluster is worth

https://ciphertalk.substack.com/p/nobody-knows-what-a-used-gpu-cluster
265•rbanffy•1w ago•239 comments
Open in hackernews

The Fastest Way yet to Color Graphs

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-fastest-way-yet-to-color-graphs-20250512/
62•GavCo•1y ago

Comments

tonyarkles•1y ago
In case you haven't looked at the article, this is looking specifically at the Edge Coloring problem and not the more commonly known Vertex Coloring problem. Vertex Coloring is NP-complete unfortunately.
erikvanoosten•1y ago
You can convert edge coloring problems into vertex coloring problems and vice versa through a simple O(n) procedure.
meindnoch•1y ago
Wrong. You can convert edge-coloring problems into vertex-coloring problems of the so-called line graph: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_graph

But the opposite is not true, because not every graph is a line graph of some other graph.

erikvanoosten•1y ago
Indeed. Thanks, I stand corrected.
tonyarkles•1y ago
Hrm... right. It's been a while. And it looks like both Vertex Coloring and Edge Coloring are both NP-complete (because of the O(n) procedure you're talking about and the ability to reduce both problems down to 3-SAT). I've started looking closer at the actual paper to try to figure out what's going on here. Thanks for the reminder, I miss getting to regularly work on this stuff.

Edit: thanks sibling reply for pointing out that it's not a bidirectional transform.

mauricioc•1y ago
For the edge-coloring problem, the optimal number of colors needed to properly color the edges of G is always either Delta(G) (the maximum degree of G) or Delta(G) + 1, but deciding which one is the true optimum is an NP-complete problem.

Nevertheless, you can always properly edge-color a graph with Delta(G) + 1 colors. Finding such a coloring could in principle be slow, though: the original proof that Delta(G) + 1 colors is always doable amounted to a O(e(G) * v(G)) algorithm, where e(G) and v(G) denote the number of edges and vertices of G, respectively. This is polynomial, but nowhere near linear. What the paper in question shows is how, given any graph G, to find an edge coloring using Delta(G) + 1 colors in O(e(G) * log(Delta(G))) time, which is linear time if the maximum degree is a constant.

Syzygies•1y ago
Yes. The article ran through this point as follows:

"In 1964, a mathematician named Vadim Vizing proved a shocking result: No matter how large a graph is, it’s easy to figure out how many colors you’ll need to color it. Simply look for the maximum number of lines (or edges) connected to a single point (or vertex), and add 1."

I keep wondering why I ever read Quanta Magazine. It takes a pretty generous reading of "need" to make this a correct statement.

JohnKemeny•1y ago
phkahler•1y ago
Is this going to lead to faster compile times? Faster register allocation...
john-h-k•1y ago
Very few compilers actually use vertex coloring for register allocation
isaacimagine•1y ago
Totally. The hard part isn't coloring (you can use simple heuristics to get a decent register assignment), rather, it's figuring out which registers to spill (don't spill registers in hot loops! and a million other things!).
NooneAtAll3•1y ago
and this post isn't even about vertex coloring
DannyBee•1y ago
No.

In SSA, the graphs are chordal, so were already easily colorable (relatively).

Outside of SSA, this is not true, but the coloring is still not the hard part, it's the easy part.

Not really. Coloring a graph is almost always talking about proper coloring, meaning that things that objects that are related receive different colors.

If you read the introduction, you'll also read that the goal is to "color each of your lines and require that for every point, no two lines connected to it have the same color."

Ps. "How many colors a graph needs" is a very well established term in computer science and graph theory.

mockerell•1y ago
I think the comment referred to the phrase „a graph needs X (colors or whatever)“. For me, this can be read two ways: 1. „a graph always needs at least X colors“ or 2. „a graph always needs at most X colors“.

Personally, I would interpret this as option 1 (and so did the comment above I assume). In that case, the statement is wrong. But I’d prefer to specify „at most/ at least“ anyways.

Or even better, use actual vocabulary. „For every graph there exists a coloring with X colors.“ or „any graph can be coloured using X colors“.

PS: I also agree with the sentiment about quanta magazine. It’s hard to get some actual information from their articles if you know the topic.

JohnKemeny•1y ago
What about this statement:

No matter how large a car is, it is easy to figure out how much money you'll need to buy it. Simply look at the price tag.

(From: No matter how large a graph is, it’s easy to figure out how many colors you’ll need to color it. Simply look for the maximum ...)

mauricioc•1y ago
Parent's point is that sometimes (but not always) the store is perfectly fine selling you a car for $1 less than what the "price tag" of Delta(G)+1 dollars asks for, so "need" is a bit inaccurate.