Posted on 08/14/2010 7:57:39 PM PDT by LibWhacker
Initially hailed as a solution to the biggest question in computer science, the latest attempt to prove P ≠ NP otherwise known as the "P vs NP" problem seems to be running into trouble.
Two prominent computer scientists have pointed out potentially "fatal flaws" in the draft proof by Vinay Deolalikar of Hewlett-Packard Labs in Palo Alto, California.
Since the 100-page proof exploded onto the internet a week ago, mathematicians and computer scientists have been racing to make sense of it.
The problem concerns the speed at which a computer can accomplish a task such as factorising a number. Roughly speaking, P is the set of problems that can be computed quickly, while NP contains problems for which the answer can be checked quickly. Serious hole?
It is generally suspected that P ≠ NP. If this is so, it would impose severe limits on what computers can accomplish. Deolalikar claims to have proved this. If he turns out to be correct, he will earn himself a $1 million Millennium prize from the Clay Mathematics Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
Math U Philosophy = Bi polar dude.
I had a room mate just after college that was just about to finish a MS in math at Texas Tech. He disappeared one day. The finally called and said he checked himself into a mental hospital.
Next weeks lotto number will be....
...the latest attempt to prove P ≠ NP -- otherwise known as the "P vs NP" problem -- seems to be running into trouble... The problem concerns the speed at which a computer can accomplish a task such as factorising a number. Roughly speaking, P is the set of problems that can be computed quickly, while NP contains problems for which the answer can be checked quickly... It is generally suspected that P ≠ NP. If this is so, it would impose severe limits on what computers can accomplish.
To P or not to P: ay, there is the rub.
I don’t understand why this is so hard P requires one operation.
NP requires at least two
As an engineer (not a scientist) I can’t help but feel more than a little sad every time I think of how the USA in 1984 literally threw away the pre-eminent institution of private basic research in the world....Bell Telephone Laboratories.
Had this institution and its corporate relationships and basic research been permitted to flourish as it had for decades, I have no doubt that this particular problem would have been solved years ago along with many others.
Candidly speaking I see a US government that has worked very hard and deliberative to destroy the once preeminent standing of the USA in research and manufacturing and exchange that capability so that a few crooks on Wall Street could make far too much money, and frankly I’m very ticked about it.
Today Bell Labs is just another typical corporate lab and it is owned by the French and Alcatel.
http://www.linfo.org/bell_labs.html
You just divided by zero.
I know - and you just passed the test. ;)
It is quite alright - I still use that, on the rare occasion that I teach math classes.
It really drives the point home.
For a while, I also used it as an interview question - if the candidate can’t spot the error quickly, they are not suited for my job.
Scott Aaronson on “P vs. NP for Dummies” http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=459
Scott Aaronson on “P vs. NP for Dummies” http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=459
And then there is Mann's Hockey stick in regard to Global warming....
That was a pretty good brain teaser. I totally missed the divide by zero and was getting worried for a second that the universe didn’t make sense!
I blame it on Rocky - my HS math teacher.
Sadistic SOB. LOL!
I was one of the first cohort of kids in my school district to be placed in the experimental “integrated math” curriculum track. Assignments often involved creating your own word problems. This was one of my first:
“Joe has three apples. Mary has no apples at all. Jealous of Joe’s good fortune, Mary multiplies her lack of apples by Joe’s three apples. How many apples does Joe have left.”
I didn’t like integrated math, much.
OBTW, whenever a mathematician says “It should be obvious to the casual observer...”, here are a few interpretations:
1. I just pulled a fast one [which I did...]
2. It is beyond the scope of this class [I have no clue what I am doing...]
3. Then, a miracle occurs...[I have no clue what I am doing...]
4. Etc. Get a grad student to explain it, I have to hit the bar.
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.