Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Tchitra additions #308

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jun 17, 2015
Merged

Conversation

NewAlexandria
Copy link
Contributor

This PR adds related README changes discussed in #279

This branch is rebased off tchitra/master (0fa129e), so it should merge cleanly after #279.

Somehow, and extraneous commit (adc8701) from sdboyer made it into the branch, but may disappear after merging the dependent PR.

Tarun Chitra and others added 6 commits February 3, 2015 00:25
…would be willing to give a talk about this topic\!
The Fast Johnson-Lindenstrauss Transform
A Sparse Johnson-Lindenstrauss Transform
Towards a unified theory of sparse dimensionality reduction in Euclidean space
@hakutsuru
Copy link
Member

+1

Fast Johnson-Lindenstrauss Transform paper has a link, which is great. But the pdf is still there, which is bad. I am not happy about formatting of the readme either. Those will be fixed in subsequent pull request.

hakutsuru added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 17, 2015
@hakutsuru hakutsuru merged commit 8aa7e6d into papers-we-love:master Jun 17, 2015
@NewAlexandria
Copy link
Contributor Author

@hakutsuru You'd prefer we leave out bibliographic citation? I thought there was a discussion that this was preferred (or at least of interest). I assume you'd have preferred the summary text be integrated into the same link / block as the paper's title – rather than being a separated 'abstract style' block? Just confirming; I can't find earlier discussion about these details.

Pardon for missing the removal of the PDF

@hakutsuru
Copy link
Member

@NewAlexandria: Thanks for putting this together. I have no opinion about the bibliographic citation, this look good to me.

The formatting that I was talking about was trivial and addressed in #314.

@NewAlexandria
Copy link
Contributor Author

Gotcha, and thanks for that

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants