Posted on 10/22/2019 2:00:33 AM PDT by LibWhacker
If it takes a thousand years to prove a thesis that reduces the solution to a few minutes, what is gained?
assuming you don’t have a calculator? I think its safe to say that less than 0.00000165 % of the population on the planet will ever reference this article for a simpler way to multiply numbers of such largess.
Think what the calculus has done for us. It took well over a thousand years to come up with it.
Actually, one of the smallest numbers there is. Admittedly, one the largest numbers you will ever encounter, but there are infinitely more numbers larger than it, and only a finite number smaller.
I assume this means that computer algorithms will compute faster, meaning software can be written that is faster and more efficient, speeding computers up without boosting IP the hardware.
Not to worry the DOE and colleges are grooming our children as activists and social justice warriors no need for math they already know 2+2=5
One nightmare scenario is the ability to factor large numbers, where “large” means a number whose factorization would require a time scale comparable to a human lifetime or an economic cost much greater than the value of decryption. Decryption of military or financial messages can be very valuable. Breaking the Axis codes during World War II was literally worth billions of dollars, and at a small fraction of the cost.
Public key encryption depends on the fact that such factorization is impractical. There are murmurs that quantum computing could break this problem, but I do not understand quantum computing, and have not heard of any practical results (and why would I?). Multiplication might be used in brute force assaults, and suddenly high school kids could read top secret military transmissions.
It can be applied empirically to speed up large number computations even in the absence of full theoretical proof.
“If the result is correct...”.
There’s only one correct result to two numbers multiplied. How will they know it’s correct?
Another solution in search of a problem.
Will it kill common core?
bigger than those grade school ones that's for sure
G = gain
N = number of times the calculation is made using the new method
T = time to calculate using the old method
M = a few minutes
Y = years
Times tables were drilled into me by the Domican nuns. At my advanced age, I’m still pretty fast. As for no calculators or computers to aid in multiplication, I still can use my slide rule with good speed. Admittedly, it can’t be used for ALL multiplication and division, but it works.
BTW, does anyone still have theirs. Mine is a Sun Hemmi for Chemical Engineers (back side has atomic weights and numbers, plus temperature and pressure conversion scales. No log functions). Bought it in Hong Kong for $5; cost in US was $16 back in 1960.
If the proof is correct, if the resulting algorithms work. One could apply the results to problems that are practical to solve and check for consistency with methods currently in use. That still does not formally prove that the method is correct, any more than the observation that 3, 5 and 7 are all prime proves all odd numbers are prime, it only proves that we have not yet discovered any counterexamples.
Using long form
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.