Top
Best
New

Posted by Curiositry 6 hours ago

Knuth reward check(www.thomas-huehn.com)
117 points | 46 comments
gucci-on-fleek 14 minutes ago|
It's not a reward check, but Knuth read one of my articles and emailed me about it [0], which I found pretty cool.

[0]: https://tug.org/TUGboat/tb43-3/tb135chernoff-lwc.pdf

nk_kolja 45 minutes ago||
I wondered how you received a real check since Knuth has not been sending out real checks (as you have noted) for some time now, only to see that you explained it in the very first sentence and I had read over it, just like many people read over the error that you found in the first sentence of the book. Nice one! I wonder what the "Infinitely" was replaced with - probably not "Finitely" :)

I had received a check recently and wrote about it too https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49286258

CurtHagenlocher 5 hours ago||
The biggest shame of my life is that I had one of these and somehow managed to lose it.
utopcell 5 hours ago||
If that's your biggest shame then you must have lived a good life.
hbcdbff 3 hours ago||
Or perhaps a life not lived
gradus_ad 2 hours ago||
This comment may trigger life changing reflection in hundreds or thousands of souls...
thih9 1 hour ago||
I guess only if you value shame? Which is not a given. HN has so many “shameless plug” comments - HN readers for sure qualify as shameless.
kens 3 hours ago||
I lost one of mine but Knuth kindly sent me a replacement.
ape4 6 hours ago||
The error was saying that "infinitely many alphabets can be generated" but there is a finite number of parameters which have a finite range of values. If Knuth had just written "a humongous number of alphabets" he would be correct.
JK-Swizzle 2 hours ago|
If I am reading this right, you can generate 268 435 456 ^ 62 alphabets.

I would say he could have even gotten away with “functionally infinite number of alphabets”.

rawling 2 hours ago||
Some of the parameters are bools. So somewhere between 2^62 and your figure...
WillAdams 3 hours ago||
It was a bit more than 25 years ago for me, check #790 for $2.88 DT 33, (143).

Really need to find another error or point of improvement so as to get the digital account --- I've been reading through TAoCP Vol. 4 Fascicle 7 on _Constraint Satisfaction_, but it's been slow going (though I did find out that it is intentional that he not list beginning of chapter quotes in the index).

largbae 5 hours ago||
What a brilliant teaching technique, think of how many people studied his work for bounties that they would never cash.
dhosek 4 hours ago|
I’m on the mailing list where errors related to TeX are submitted and the level of scrutiny behind submissions is truly mind-boggling.
ryandrake 3 hours ago||
Honestly, I wish all software were subject to that much scrutiny.
assumed_throwaw 5 hours ago||
I'm surprised we haven't heard of anyone running an AI on Donald Knuth's books to generate the largest collection of checks in existence...
gucci-on-fleek 5 minutes ago||
They definitely have; lots of the recent bug reports [0] explicitly acknowledge AI assistance. You can also look at the list of pending bug reports [1] and see how many are from 2026 compared to other years (and it takes many months to get the bug reports enough to add them to this list, so this significantly undercounts things).

[0]: https://tug.org/pipermail/tex-k/

[1]: https://tug.org/texmfbug/newbug.html

WillAdams 4 hours ago|||
He is quite methodical and meticulous --- I doubt that there is much in the training data which isn't already accounted for in his research for his writings.

I only managed to get one check (for an error and a point of improvement) for _very_ minor points in _Digital Typography_ which was facilitated by my having been fascinated by typography since reading Oscar Ogg's _The 26 Letters_ and his cousin Warren Chappell's _The Living Alphabet_ when I was 8 or so.

xyst 2 hours ago||
The next headline will read: "AI pilled vibecoders bankrupt a once prominent computer scientist, the figure will surprise you!"
bariswheel 1 hour ago||
Sadly I think this is the end of an era. Someone should probably run an AI fact checker on this and send him the rest of any errors. Or he could change the nature or requirement of the reward, if somehow it can be proved the error could not have been found without a human's effort.
janvdberg 6 hours ago||
Awesome! I know the feeling, I have two myself. https://x.com/loginn/status/1367475093719416833

(Hmm maybe I should also write a blogpost about this)

jll29 4 hours ago||
I also got one for catching DEK out for claiming "Alan Turing broke the Enigma".

That claim goes to the Polish cryptoanalyst Marian Rejewski instead, of course (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Rejewski); what Alan Turing and Tommy Flowers did was automate the breaking, which was important because it had to be done again every day (due to the many combinations of configurations of the Enigma).

utopcell 5 hours ago||
I bet the mailing cost was more than 0x$2.00 for Knuth.
jacquesm 5 hours ago|
Interesting how no other writers in the field seem to have adopted Knuths' strategy to get their books proofread to the point of being bullet proof.
chompychop 4 hours ago|
No other writers have the stature of Knuth. The motivation to proof-read here is not the monetary reward after all.
More comments...