3

I've created a new algorithm and would like to publish it. However, I can't think of any interesting or pronounceable name for the algorithm. Is it acceptable to name the algorithm after a cartoon character?

Neuchâtel
  • 5,397
  • 3
  • 21
  • 54
  • 5
    For comparison, there's a protocol called Kermit — named after the Muppet, but with permission from Henson Associates (and also an unrelated backronym, presumably to avoid trademark issues). Since some entertainment companies are known to be fiercely protective and litigious, it probably pays to get permission and/or legal advice. – gidds Sep 18 '23 at 14:24
  • The case of Stooge sort, named for The Three Stooges, seems quite relevant as a comparison. – Louis Wasserman Sep 18 '23 at 21:31
  • There's the famous "tortoise and hare" algorithm for finding cycles in graphs. Not quite cartoon characters, but from an Aesop fable, that should count as an example. – gnasher729 Sep 19 '23 at 23:54

4 Answers4

13

There is a family of genes first identified in fruit fly mutations. Genes identified this way are named according to the phenotype in mutants, so the first gene in this family was called "hedgehog" after the appearance of these mutant flies.

A related gene and protein was somewhat jokingly named sonic hedgehog. Cute, memorable, maybe moderately funny. But it caused some controversy when it was connected to human disease. Who wants to tell people their kid is sick because they have a defective Sonic Hedgehog gene? Not really the best time for joking and hard to take seriously.

Wikipedia now says the controversy has died down, but I guess I'd just consider the consequences. Yeah, you can name things this way, but whether it sticks or not, does it help people remember your algorithm, or does it distract or create a nuisance association?

Some other related Q&A to consider:

Why the taboo against naming discoveries after yourself?

What are good principles for naming an algorithm?

Azor Ahai -him-
  • 30,111
  • 9
  • 88
  • 115
Bryan Krause
  • 114,149
  • 27
  • 331
  • 420
10

You can, but others don't have to accept or use the name. However, if there is some reason that the name represents an analogy or metaphor suggested in the name, then others might agree and use it. If that is the case, then it might be worth saying why you chose the name.

There isn't really any way to assign an "official" recognized name to such a thing. Names "stick" or they don't.

Let me add an odd example. There is some value in developing terrible algorithms, just for the educational value. Suppose you develop an educational algorithm that "always misses its mark" (whatever that might mean). Calling it the Elmer Fudd algorithm might make a bit of sense. But, twenty (or a hundred) years or so in the future the name would need explanation and the connection wouldn't be so obvious (assuming it still is, actually).

I once gave some thought to finding the least efficient sorting algorithm, not for use but just as a thought experiment, possibly shared with students. A competition in such things can also be fun.

But choosing a random, unrelated, name adds no value to what you are doing.

Buffy
  • 363,966
  • 84
  • 956
  • 1,406
  • 9
    "in the future the name would need explanation and the connection wouldn't be so obvious"

    I think this happens all the time. E.g, What is that rectangle-ish thing used to represent the Save button?

     – Agnishom Chattopadhyay Sep 18 '23 at 14:34
0

Never.

  1. It will damage the seriousness with which readers will take everything you write.
  2. Character names are private property and the owner of the name will have something to say about your use of it.
Martin Kochanski
  • 2,094
  • 13
  • 12
  • 12
    As somebody who was previously in a team that called an approach QUATSCH (German word for a silly thing), I disagree with your first point. If anything, a memorable name (even if slightly whimsical) helps getting taken seriously. – xLeitix Sep 18 '23 at 12:39
  • 4
    Cultural differences between different disciplines may factor in heavily for the first point. – lighthouse keeper Sep 18 '23 at 12:52
  • 1
    Your #2 would also seem to imply that you can't name an algorithm after an individual. – Buffy Sep 18 '23 at 13:07
  • 2
    @Buffy A name (for a real person) is not a private property (there is not document saying that you and only you can use that name), while, say Mikey Mouse, is a name on which Disney has legal rights on. – Itération 122442 Sep 18 '23 at 13:46
  • 5
    "Mickey Mouse" specifically is a trademark, and a trademark is a name which has value only in narrow categories (e.g. comics, some merchandise, amusement parks for Mickey Mouse). Algorithms won't be among the trademarked categories for Mickey Mouse. – MSalters Sep 18 '23 at 15:03
  • 1
    A natural person would potentially have right of publicity on their name (dependent on jurisdiction), so while not a trademark there still could be other legal implications – Ty Hayes Sep 18 '23 at 18:33
  • @MSalters While that's true, do you think it would stop the Walt Disney Co. sending a shedload (or rather, ‘disputation’) of lawyers your way? They might not be morally justified; they might not even be legally justified, but you probably wouldn't have the time or funds to establish that before being bankrupted. (It needn't be for breach of trademark; IANAL, but maybe they could sue for libel if they had even the slightest grounds for claiming that your usage brought their character into disrepute. Or I'm sure they could find other charges if they didn't like your usage.) – gidds Sep 19 '23 at 13:05
  • @gidds: The good thing about Disney lawyers is that they are very good. They what is and isn't covered by trademark law. So when they know you know, and they know you know the judge knows, they also know the show is over. Libel? They'd have to bring that suit to court with a professional disclaimer "my client made me do this, but I know this is nonsense". So that's not a serious threat either. – MSalters Sep 19 '23 at 13:46
  • I think that there are IP issues with using a cartoon name. Even if the legal challenge does not succeed it would be a serious expense, distraction and embarrassment to the algorithm originators. It might be better to use a distinctive name, e.g. that resonates with the nature of the algorithm and is not your own name or any name you use in publications. For example, a slow sorting algorithm might be called the "sloth sort", etc. – Trunk Sep 20 '23 at 11:11
-5

No. It sounds childish.

Does it need to have a name in your paper? If so, call it by a meaningful name (even if it is not an "interesting or pronounceable" name), or just call it Algorithm 1 or something like that.

toby544
  • 2,561
  • 10
  • 10
  • Could the 4 downvoters say why they don't like this answer? Do you think naming algorithm after a cartoon character is OK and not childish? – toby544 Sep 18 '23 at 07:22
  • 1
    I'm not an expert on these things, but there are definitely instances where people have given a name after a cartoon character and it stuck. One example is the Sonic Hedgehog protein. I'm assuming there are many more uses. Eventually it is name that people should rememeber. – Keen-ameteur Sep 18 '23 at 11:50
  • 1
    Also, I wasn't one of the 4 downvotes. I just disagree with necessarily not naming things after childish things. – Keen-ameteur Sep 18 '23 at 11:52
  • 6
    I downvoted. Science is better once people stop being so damned serious about everything. – xLeitix Sep 18 '23 at 12:40
  • @Keen-ameteur Indeed - other genes named after fictional characters include Sleeping Beauty, cookie monster, and tinman. – Nuclear Hoagie Sep 18 '23 at 13:44
  • 1
    I think it's also empirically wrong. A lot of important ideas and so on have cutesy names. It helps with memorability. Nobody cares about "Algorithm 1" unless it's so incredibly groundbreaking that you actually earn the name in everybody's minds. But lots of people know Bozo-sort even though it's a dumb name for a dumb algorithm. And if nobody remembers your paper / algorithm / etc. you might as well not have written it. – Richard Rast Sep 18 '23 at 15:52
  • 1
    Thanks for your explanations. It reminds me of the professor in The Wire who says he has to go to "the little boy's room" and the police officer Colvin says "I never understood why a grown-ass man gotta talk like that." People should be able to think of memorable names for things that are not childish. Sleeping Beauty and Tinman are OK. – toby544 Sep 18 '23 at 20:22
  • I disagree with it being childish. I agree that it should be meaningful, though. – kejtos Sep 19 '23 at 07:27
  • 1
    @toby544 No argument there, no need to be childish; but childish is a matter of taste. I had a professor who kept insisting an argument was "Mickey Mouse" because it involved a Venn-like diagram with big "ears" on the top. It was dumb but we knew what he meant. – Richard Rast Sep 19 '23 at 14:18