Or you may end up looking like Perelman and also refusing the Fields medal and the Millennium prize.
Yeah, I started to do math, and all of a sudden none of the cool girls wanted to get with me anymore.
But the pi was too good, cos i was tan like sin.
he has more hair on the bridge of his nose than i have on my head…whats up with that
Too much maths can go to your head! He’s turned down a $1m prize twice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=UK8Y_FDyDbg
He’s retired from all maths & lives a reclusive existence with his mum, living on her pension. He plays table tennis on half a ping pong table set against the wall. He only comes out of his apartment to buy groceries (you can catch that on youtube too!).
Stick to your standup career. Rap is not for you.
“He had previously turned down a prestigious prize from the European Mathematical Society,[26] allegedly saying that he felt the prize committee was unqualified to assess his work, even positively.[27]”
Ouch, what a slap in the face to the European Math Society.
I often visit my math lab for speed and score
Am I a bad person? Is it poor will power or a disease?
my ass is fat…why do i have to be attached to it?
You don’t. Hack it off
I knew a guy who had to drink all day long to calm his continuous impulse to do his numbers. Never knew if he smoke pot or did other stuff, but he always had a quarter of Red Label with him, even in the university. He taught in Switzerland and now in the U.S. He got his first offer in Switzerland after solving one of those open problems in the math community. Not a Millennium-level problem obviously. He got his PhD really fast and is very funny. The guy is good.
“If P = NP, then the world would be a profoundly different place than we usually assume it to be. There would be no special value in ‘creative leaps,’ no fundamental gap between solving a problem and recognizing the solution once it’s found. Everyone who could appreciate a symphony would be Mozart; everyone who could follow a step-by-step argument would be Gauss…”
- — Scott Aaronson, MIT
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem
- "In a 2002 poll of 100 researchers, 61 believed the answer to be no, 9 believed the answer is yes, and 22 were unsure; 8 believed the question may be independent of the currently accepted axioms and therefore is impossible to prove or disprove."
- The P vs NP problem interests me the most. I actually believe that P = NP, but don't think it will be solved until we get deep into Artificial Intelligence. I think that Scott Aaronson has an interesting insight, but feel that once (if) P = NP is solved, creative leaps will be the ONLY form of advancement. Knowledge will be easily transferable directly into the brain, but even when all logical assumptions are common knowledge, that will not make us all Mozart. We may understand all of Physics, but will not be able to paint like Picasso. This will eliminate the current step that we have to go through in acquiring knowledge. Knowledge acquisition will be direct and instantaneous, but the decisions people make with what they think is important will determine the future.
^ Artificial Intelligence as we know it now obviously operates under the assumption that P != NP. Hence, I would argue that AI won’t be able to establish that P == NP. That would be the result of a pure theoretical work that if it’s proven, will change AI’s approach, but not the other way around.
I’m not all that familiar with the P ?= NP problem. Can someone give an overview (saw wikipedia, but didn’t want to go through it right now)?
Basically asks, if a computer can verify a solution, can it “quickly” produce that solution? And does this hold for all problems? There is no definitive answer (yet).
A “quick” solution is defined as polynomial time (I assume faster than that would also be acceptable).
If computers could solve all problems quickly, we could say… “computer, please do all physics research” instead of getting PhD guys to do it. I think this is what those nerds are talking about above.
My cyborg overlord says that people should not concern themselves with the N = NP problem. We should procreate more so we produce more spare parts.
What does is the diference between “verify” and “produce” a solution?
I kinda get the gist that verify means you’ve supplied some rules for it to come to a decision about, versus the computer inventing the rules and verifying it on its own. But it seems that how this is defined is pretty material to the answer.
This example from the wiki page seems to summarise the difference:
Given a set of integers, does some nonempty subset of them sum to 0? For instance, does a subset of the set {−2, −3, 15, 14, 7, −10} add up to 0? The answer “yes, because {−2, −3, −10, 15} add up to zero” can be quickly verified with three additions. However, there is no known algorithm to find such a subset in polynomial time (there is one, however, in exponential time, which consists of 2n-1 tries), and indeed such an algorithm can only exist if P = NP ; hence this problem is in NP (quickly checkable) but not necessarily in P (quickly solvable).
I could be mis-interpreting it, but I think I’ve heard that if P=NP, then you could program a computer that can generate random proofs for things and then verify if they are true. So then you could generate 100000s of proofs and hopefully some will tell you something interesting (like solving another Clay prize).
Is “P==NP” itself an NP-problem? Self-referential questions can be troubling in any formal logic system. I vote that the problem is undecidable. Yay Godel!
What does P stand for?
Problem = Not a Problem?
Only if there’s no problem, sir…