| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Cryptography Forum » A link with news on P vs NP... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Mok-Kong Shen... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Unruh... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen at (no spam) t-online.de> writes:
[quote]http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/future.news2.html
[/quote]
A largely pointless article, written in the year 2032.
There is no news on P vs NP in it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mok-Kong Shen... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Unruh wrote:
[quote]Mok-Kong Shen writes:
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/future.news2.html
A largely pointless article, written in the year 2032.
There is no news on P vs NP in it.
[/quote]
Sorry, I don't understand you. Unless the site gives wrong information,
which I couldn't know, here is the first paragraph of it:
The world of theoretical computer science has been turned upside
down by a stunning triple development which has finally solved
its most famous problem: whether P=NP. This was one of the seven
problems for which the Clay Mathematics Institute offered a million
dollars in their famous Millennium Meeting over thirty years ago,
and the second (after the Poincaré conjecture) to be solved.
However, a controversy has erupted over how the prize money (which
ten years ago was increased to two million dollars) should be
distributed.
M. K. Shen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Unruh... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen at (no spam) t-online.de> writes:
[quote]Unruh wrote:
Mok-Kong Shen writes:
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/future.news2.html
A largely pointless article, written in the year 2032.
There is no news on P vs NP in it.
Sorry, I don't understand you. Unless the site gives wrong information,
which I couldn't know, here is the first paragraph of it:
The world of theoretical computer science has been turned upside
down by a stunning triple development which has finally solved
its most famous problem: whether P=NP. This was one of the seven
problems for which the Clay Mathematics Institute offered a million
dollars in their famous Millennium Meeting over thirty years ago,
^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
and the second (after the Poincaré conjecture) to be solved.
However, a controversy has erupted over how the prize money (which
ten years ago was increased to two million dollars) should be
distributed.
[/quote]
Notice -- The Clay Inst. offered the prize in the year 2000 (the
Millenium) which the article states is over 30 years ago. The article also
states that the key advance took place in 2019.
It's a joke, or perhaps a commentary on the stupidity of such prizes,
since the advances which solve such problems are distributed over a whole
bunch of people. It is in the same league as Gulliver's Travels ( a
commentary, amongst others, on the stupidity of science), only
this one is not so well written.
>M. K. Shen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rossum... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:29:12 GMT, Unruh <unruh-spam at (no spam) physics.ubc.ca>
wrote:
[quote]It is in the same league as Gulliver's Travels ( a
commentary, amongst others, on the stupidity of science), only
this one is not so well written.
[/quote]
"A Modest Proposal" is also well worth reading:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
rossum |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mok-Kong Shen... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Unruh wrote:
[quote]Notice -- The Clay Inst. offered the prize in the year 2000 (the
Millenium) which the article states is over 30 years ago. The article also
states that the key advance took place in 2019.
It's a joke, or perhaps a commentary on the stupidity of such prizes,
since the advances which solve such problems are distributed over a whole
bunch of people. It is in the same league as Gulliver's Travels ( a
commentary, amongst others, on the stupidity of science), only
this one is not so well written.
[/quote]
Thank you for the explanation. I must accuse myself that I was
unintelligent and careless enough not to have noticed that the
article was something of the sort of 1st April.
On the other hand, this reminds me of a discussion long ago with
private acquaintances on the trustworthiness of materials in Wiki.
For there are a huge amount of articles in Wiki and it is unlikely
that they are all (or at least 90%) carefully scrutinized by the
experts in the corresponding fields, since most experts may not have
the time or interest to read the articles or even like to take the
trouble to constantly check whether a new article in their fields
appears there. I don't know actually, but I guess that Wolfram's
Alpha might substantially utilize informations available on the
internet. In case Alpha uses some of the faked/joke informations,
then a user of Alpha simply wouldn't be able to know that at all.
M. K. Shen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| William Ahern... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen at (no spam) t-online.de> wrote:
<snip>
[quote]Thank you for the explanation. I must accuse myself that I was
unintelligent and careless enough not to have noticed that the
article was something of the sort of 1st April.
On the other hand, this reminds me of a discussion long ago with
private acquaintances on the trustworthiness of materials in Wiki.
snip
In case [Wolfram's] Alpha uses some of the faked/joke informations, then a
user of Alpha simply wouldn't be able to know that at all.
[/quote]
Where people got the idea that critical thinking was somehow less necessary
in 1989 than 2009, because there were fewer authors, ostensibly more
learned, I have no idea. It's preposterous and dangerous rhetoric. (I say
this generally, not directed toward you.)
The solution to Wikipedia is critical thinking. A practical way to achieve
this when outside your own expert domain is to cross-reference multiple
sources and actively attempt to distill something more substantially
dependable. A cheap way to do this, IMO, is to peruse several Wikipedia
articles within some broader subject domain. You'll notice that there's
often much copy and pasting of material from one article to another, yet the
material diverges in differing directions. Compute a vector, et voila!
Alternatively, the differences hint at the proper contours of the subject
matter. None of this can be done mechanically, of course.
A sometimes richer source of Wikipedia material is the History section,
where editors argue amongst themselves. But, let's not open the whole
epistemological can of worms. There are many facets to the issue.
Don't feel embarrassed. One day I got completely wrapped up in the Financial
Times Martin Lukes satire. I happened upon the series of articles right at
its denouement, and was enthralled for hours as I read the whole series
before realizing the spoof. Enjoyable all the same.
This thread isn't entirely inappropriate to sci.crypt, of course. Anyone
care to point out apropos literature in trust metrics? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bartosz Zoltak... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/future.news2.html
[/quote]
Who knows when the P vs NP problem will be solved...
regards,
Bartosz Zoltak |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Noob... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bartosz Zoltak wrote:
[quote]Who knows when the P vs NP problem will be solved...
[/quote]
In his not so humble opinion, JSH has already solved that problem!
;-) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:54 am
|
|