<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bloom-filtered Britney</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bit-player.org/2008/bloom-filtered-britney/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bit-player.org/2008/bloom-filtered-britney</link>
	<description>An amateur's outlook on computation and mathematics.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:15:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Suresh</title>
		<link>http://bit-player.org/2008/bloom-filtered-britney#comment-1702</link>
		<dc:creator>Suresh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:26:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bit-player.org/?p=149#comment-1702</guid>
		<description>Hi Brian
  In the American Scientist article, you actually omit the main result on counting the number of distinct items: the paper by Flajolet and Martin from 1983 that uses a very neat hashing trick. 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.12.7100</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Brian<br />
  In the American Scientist article, you actually omit the main result on counting the number of distinct items: the paper by Flajolet and Martin from 1983 that uses a very neat hashing trick. </p>
<p><a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.12.7100" rel="nofollow">http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.12.7100</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

