Article Writing

Pete O'Hanlon4-Mar-15 8:53

4-Mar-15 8:53

This one's simple. You posted someone else's copyrighted work here on CodeProject. This is plagiarism, and this is something that we do not allow. We expect you to come up with the content, rather than just copying someone else's work. That is why the article was closed.

DiponRoy4-Mar-15 9:43

DiponRoy

4-Mar-15 9:43

Yes that is my question, if I would wanted to claim the code why I would provide the links which helped me out? Why would I claim other ones work?

And I thought I would help others if he get this two at a same place

What wrong I did!!!

Pete O'Hanlon4-Mar-15 9:46

4-Mar-15 9:46

By publishing their work here, that's plagiarism. If, instead, you'd just linked out to them then that would have been different. To put it another way - imagine that you had managed to get the sourcecode for Windows. It's fine for you to post a link to Microsoft for people to get a legitimate copy of Windows from them. It's wrong for you to provide the code for them on the grounds that you're just putting it into one place for them.

DiponRoy4-Mar-15 10:16

DiponRoy

4-Mar-15 10:16

Ok its making some sciences

But let’s say I studied few links before I post an articles. Is it like from now I will not be able to add those links at my post?

It is important because I am working on few articles a want to post them. I was not write post in code project for last 6-7 months. I started this month and facing that sort of things.

Pete O'Hanlon4-Mar-15 10:41

4-Mar-15 10:41

A simple rule to follow. In general, if the words or the code belong to someone else then you can't use them.

Pete O'Hanlon4-Mar-15 8:51

4-Mar-15 8:51

If you remove the large images and the code dump from the prose, what are you left with? Are you educated as to the thought processes that have gone into this, or is it a recipe for someone else to follow. If you come away knowing what design decisions were made and what trade offs have been considered, then it's definitely an article. If all you come away knowing is what the code actually looks like, then it's a tip. You can argue all you like but if you want people to rate your article based on its content then it makes sense not to give them a distraction to downvote it on.

DiponRoy4-Mar-15 10:19

DiponRoy

4-Mar-15 10:19

Those large images was been used to make more seance. Not the size of the post.

An indicator image can help you out ... writing less words and making more seance D'Oh! | :doh:

Pete O'Hanlon4-Mar-15 10:24

4-Mar-15 10:24

You misunderstand. If you take out the images, there's not a lot left. There's certainly no indication of the thought processes and the decisions that went into it. That's why it's a tip. Don't get hung up on thinking about the title, the fact that you posted a tip is a good thing. Not everything has to be a fully fledged article - a lot of my earlier articles would be classed as tips now but because the tip system wasn't in place then, they are articles. It's only the larger pieces of work that I would class as an article now.

Writing an article about double-double types

Nelek5-Mar-15 0:40

Nelek

5-Mar-15 0:40

A tiny correction: I am not editor (Editors are CP-Staff), I am protector (volunteer).

About your answer to my suggestion, I answered you as well. In short is the same as you have been told here. So I don't think I have to go into details, it is not going to bring anything new to the conversation.

M.D.V.

If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

Daniel Pfeffer3-Mar-15 4:58

3-Mar-15 4:58

I intend to write an article (including source code) about my implementation of the double-double type (an extended-precision floating-point type, implemented using two 'double's). I have used code written by David Bailey (the QD library) as a starting point, but am adding many features:

* higher precision for trigonometric functions
* better implementation of exponential functions
* implementation of additional functions present in the C++ <math> header
* writing the code in a modern manner (everything in the appropriate namespaces, etc.)
* ...

Would that sort of article be acceptable as a new article, or is it likely to be considered plagiarism?

[Naturally, the non-original parts of the code are acknowledged in the source and in the article.]

If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.

--Winston Churchill

Pete O'Hanlon3-Mar-15 11:54

3-Mar-15 11:54

As long as you give proper attribution, and the original work is open to derivation, I don't see their being any problems.

Daniel Pfeffer3-Mar-15 22:59

3-Mar-15 22:59

OK, thanks.

The article will be posted in a couple of days...

Jörgen Andersson4-Mar-15 7:10

Jörgen Andersson

4-Mar-15 7:10

What Pete said.

Would't Quadruple be a better name?

Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

Daniel Pfeffer4-Mar-15 8:17

4-Mar-15 8:17

Jörgen Andersson wrote:
Would't Quadruple be a better name?

Actually, no.

binary128 (AKA quadruple-precision) is defined in the IEEE-754 Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic as having 1 sign bit, 15 exponent bits, and 113 mantissa bits (1 bit is hidden). The problem is that no hardware imlementations exist, as yet.

The 'double-double' type uses the sum of two binary64 (AKA double-precision) values to represent a 106-bit value. The advantage is that double-precision is implemented in hardware, and so even though we need more operations - it is still faster than a software implementation of binary128.

I'll stop now, or I might as well write the rest of the article here... Smile | :)

Jörgen Andersson4-Mar-15 8:27

Jörgen Andersson

4-Mar-15 8:27

Well then it makes sense.
I could argue, probably in vain, that there is a point in forward compatibility.
But that's for a different article then. Smile | :)

Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

Daniel Pfeffer4-Mar-15 8:43

4-Mar-15 8:43

I'm also working on a software implementation of binary128, but - as you say - that's another article.

[BTW, the 'double-double' idea is not limited to binary64. There is no reason why you couldn't have a 'quad-quad' type that gave you 226 bits of precision...]