Quotes

Jan. 3rd, 2007 04:21 pm
jack: (Default)
[personal profile] jack
Is P=NP? In a 2002 poll of 100 researchers, 61 believed the answer is no, 9 believed the answer is yes, 22 were unsure, and 8 believed the question may be independent of the currently accepted axioms, and so impossible to prove or disprove. --Wikipedia

John Wilkes Booth (May 10, 1838 – April 26, 1865) was an American stage actor. He is best known today as the assassin of President Abraham Lincoln. -- Wikipedia

"The next morning I remembered nothing but that I had had a "clever" inspiration while guzzling whisky from the bottle. "Oh, no," I muttered, "What did I do?" And I went to the computer to see what damage I had wrought. I called up the problematic part of the program, and regarded my alcohol-inspired solution. There was a clear and detailed comment explaining the solution, and as I read the code, my surprise grew. "Hey," I said, astonished, "it really was clever."

And then I saw the comment at the very end of the clever section: "Told you so."

I don't know what to conclude from this, except perhaps that I should have spent more of my life drinking whiskey. I did try bringing a flask with me to work every day for a while, about fifteen years ago, but I don't remember any noteworthy outcome. But it certainly wasn't a disaster. Still, a lot of people report major problems with this strategy, so it's hard to know what to make of my experience."
-- www.plover.com/blog/

For every Halo, there are a dozen Universal Studios Theme Park Adventure. No offense to the people who wrote that game, I came upon it with a search for "worst video game") -- www.plover.com/blog/

And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places  -- Einstein

I am now going to do something I’m not sure I’ve ever done before. I am going to praise something Robert Jordan wrote. -- limyaael

Arrow Key--Move.
Z'key -- Blow up self. --Complete controls for a videogame

Lord, do I hate repeating unattributed quotes, because they usually turn out to have been coined by Hitler, or Orson Scott Card, or both -- terrifel, boards.straightdope.com

Hey! eBay! You're not microsoft! Stop fucking with my HTML! --boards.straightdope.com?

Integrating Sqrt(tan). This one's easy. Use the method of guess-and-check. Guess a function, differentiate it, and see if you get the original function back. If you do, you're done. If not, guess again. The key to the method of guess and check is to make good guesses. Here, I would recommend guessing 1/2*tan(x)^(1/2)*cos(x)*2^(1/2)*arccos(cos(x)-sin(x))/(cos(x)*sin(x))^(1/2)-1/2*2^(1/2)*ln(cos(x)+2^(1/2)*tan(x)^(1/2)*cos(x)+sin(x)) . Sure enough, when we check d/dx [1/2*tan(x)^(1/2)*cos(x)*2^(1/2)*arccos(cos(x)-sin(x))/(cos(x)*sin(x))^(1/2)-1/2*2^(1/2)*ln(cos(x)+2^(1/2)*tan(x)^(1/2)*cos(x)+sin(x))] , we get sqrt(tan(x)). It's simple!" -- boards.straightdope.com

Date: 2007-01-03 05:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
I don't know. However, conveniently the wikipedia article does link to what it was quoting, and I don't know any more than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_classes_P_and_NP#Why_do_many_computer_scientists_think_P_.E2.89.A0_NP.3F, footnote 1 (ps).

Surely exhibiting that program and proving its running time must therefore constitute a proof within the currently accepted axioms that P=NP.

Is there is a program, is it always possible to prove that it does run in polynomial time?

Date: 2007-01-03 05:30 pm (UTC)
simont: A picture of me in 2016 (Default)
From: [personal profile] simont
That was a really interesting list of comments. I particularly liked Knuth's comment that the worst-case scenario is a totally nonconstructive proof that P=NP: nobody will ever trust (for example) NP-dependent crypto again, but on the other hand nobody will be able to crack it either, so nobody wins...

If there is a program, is it always possible to prove that it does run in polynomial time?

I did mention that in my final paragraph.

Date: 2007-01-03 05:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
so nobody wins...

Yes, indeed...

I did mention that in my final paragraph.

Doh! Sorry.

OK, I see. So it might be that P=/=NP, and the existence of a proof depends on including/excluding a new axiom; or that P=NP and the proof that the relevant algorithm works depends on including/excluding a new axiom; so there may be no proof within our currently accepted logic, but it must in fact be one or the other?