[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 51 KB, 576x416, fudgepopsicle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2614520 No.2614520 [Reply] [Original]

hey guise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_problems

solve a simple math problem win $1,000,000

>> No.2614533

>>2614520
>solve a simple math problem win $1,000,000
>simple math problem
>simple

no...

>> No.2614537

>>2614533

>can't do simple math

>> No.2614539

i looked at all of them and its retarded

they dont even ask you a question

its more like if herpa derp derp then derpa derp derp so derp?

>> No.2614543

>>2614539

The herpa derp derp was the question.

>> No.2614551

>>2614537
shut the fuck up, neither can you

>>2614539
agree

>>2614543
HURR DURRRRR

>> No.2614557

>>2614543
heres an example

"The P versus NP problem is a major unsolved problem in computer science. Informally, it asks whether every problem whose solution can be efficiently checked by a computer can also be efficiently solved by a computer."

Ummm... Yes? That sounds like common sense...
But if not I have a 50% chance of winning so who do I contact?

>> No.2614572

>>2614551

yes I can, I already solved 2, working on the rest.

$6 million ducks here I come

>> No.2614582

>>2614557
>that sounds like common sense

Well that shows that
1. You don't understand the problem at hand
2. You don't understand the concept of proof

>> No.2614591

>>2614557
>50% chance of winning

Really? I'd say you have a 0% chance of winning. You don't just need to come up with the answer, you need to prove it. There's a reason these problems have such a large prize.

>> No.2614597

>>2614582

Well that shows that
1. You don't understand the problem at hand

Actually I do. Im also 100% certain that a computer has to be able to do a problem before it can check it. BECAUSE TO CHECK IT YOU HAVE TO DO IT. YOU CANT JUST SPAWN THE ANSWER OUT OF NOWHERE.

>> No.2614602

>>2614597
are you like stupid or something?

>> No.2614607

>>2614597
again, by saying that you again don't understand the P=NP problem.

>> No.2614611
File: 22 KB, 400x400, 1298238517260.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2614611

>>2614597
>Actually I do. Im also 100% certain that a computer has to be able to do a problem before it can check it. BECAUSE TO CHECK IT YOU HAVE TO DO IT. YOU CANT JUST SPAWN THE ANSWER OUT OF NOWHERE.

>> No.2614614

>>2614607
WIKIPEDIA
QUOTE
"The P versus NP problem is a major unsolved problem in computer science. Informally, it asks whether every problem whose solution can be efficiently checked by a computer can also be efficiently solved by a computer."

"The P versus NP problem is a major unsolved problem in computer science. Informally, it asks whether every problem whose solution can be efficiently checked by a computer can also be efficiently solved by a computer."

"The P versus NP problem is a major unsolved problem in computer science. Informally, it asks whether every problem whose solution can be efficiently checked by a computer can also be efficiently solved by a computer."

>> No.2614615

>>2614572 here

brotip: P=/=NP

>> No.2614620

>>2614597
Prove it.

>> No.2614624

>>2614582
exactly, everyone who says anything in computational theory is "intuitive" doesn't even have the vocabulary to understand the problem..

>> No.2614626

>>2614614
yes, and you don't seem to undestand the diffence in finding solutions and checking solutions.

>> No.2614631

>>2614620
You cant spawn something from nothing.

By the way this isnt coming from me this is dumbed down for athiests who cant comprehend.

But ya you cant spawn an answer out of nowhere unless its stored somewhere but that means the problem was done atleast once.

>> No.2614646

>>2614631
and?
All you are saying is the solutions have been found then the problem is solvable
That is not really related to P=NP

>> No.2614649

>But ya you cant spawn an answer out of nowhere unless its stored somewhere but that means the problem was done at least once.
1. prove it

>> No.2614660

>>2614649
>prove it

Thats what I was talking about with the athiest shit. Since im assuming that your an athiest because your on /sci/. So basically your contradicting yourself because the universe had to come from nothing. So I cant prove it to a contradictory retard. I have to know what plain your on.

>> No.2614672

>>2614660
Watch me pull solutions out of nowhere

x^2+3x+2=0

lets check if -1 is a solution
1+-3+2=0

Oh wow, looks like it is. And I didn't solve that equation before checking a solution.

Guess something just came out of nothing

>> No.2614681

>>2614631

Obvious troll

But, to everyone else. P versus NP doesn't say that.

It says can NP hard problems be solved in polynomial time.

It basically saying that for very hard computer problems with a ton of possible calculations, there is an efficient way to calculate it.

Most people think no. However, it hasn't been proven. Also, it likely to be solved using statistical physics, but that is another story.

>> No.2614683

>>2614672
>Oh wow, looks like it is. And I didn't solve that equation before checking a solution.

No you had to solve it to know if it was a solution.

>> No.2614685

I can't wait to moot 404s sci/

Everything now is religous trolls.

>> No.2614695

>>2614683
oh boy, I'm just going to stop now, because you still aren't comprehending the difference between checking a solution and computing a solution, either deliberately (in which case you got me good, 6/10 probably would respond again) or because you are an absolute idiot.

>> No.2614696

>>2614597

I wasn't convinced but now you emphasised the argument in caps I have changed my mind and now encourage you to formally submit this proof and collect your reward.

>> No.2614703

>>2614695
I loved when you said

"lets check if -1 is a solution
1+-3+2=0
Oh wow, looks like it is. And I didn't solve that equation before checking a solution."

And you blatantly solved it RIGHT THERE. Are you that retarded?

>> No.2614728

>>2614703
>you still aren't comprehending the difference between checking a solution and computing a solution

>> No.2614731

>>2614728
WELL FUCKING TELL ME

Because im pretty sure my 1st grade teacher taught me that one.

>> No.2614740

>>2614557

How about instead of name-calling and shouting, we show this guy an example? Here's an example of a problem that takes exponential time to solve, but linear time to check:

Say you have a ridiculously large number (say, 200 digits), that you know is the product of two primes. Factor the number.

Chances are both numbers are around 100 digits. If you want to solve the problem, the only way to do it is by checking every possible combination, which takes forever. If you want to check someone's solution, all you have to do is multiply their two numbers and see if it gives the original. Checking someone's solution, in this case, is a lot easier than finding one.

For this problem, people have found faster ways than checking every combination, however nobody's found a way to find a solution faster than exponential time. Unless you count quantum computers, but then you're leaving the realm of classical complexity theory...

This problem is actually very important to cryptology and keeping data secure. If you could factor 240 digit numbers quickly, you could read wikileaks' super secure encrypted file.

>> No.2614756

>Only the Poincaré conjecture has been solved, by Grigori Perelman, who declined the award.
HRRRRRRRRRRRRRNG

>> No.2614766

>>2614740
So wait...
They are basically asking " how do we solve a problem faster than the fastest way possible?"

Sounds reasonable.

>> No.2614767

Due to OP's pic I blew spit on my screen. Now I have to clean it up.

>> No.2614831

>>2614766
Pretty much.

For any one of these hard computer programs, can we define an algorithm that solves (not just checks) these problems in an efficient amount of time (polynomial time relative to the input given).

No, these problems are not easy.

>> No.2614833

>>2614766

You're forgetting that the people who are finding solutions to these problems are only human. It could be possible that there's a polynomial-time method out there that's just so complex and difficult that nobody's found it yet. It could also be the case that there's no possible way to solve it faster than exponential time. Right now we don't know one way or the other. Proving P==NP or P!=NP would tell us though.

>> No.2614839

>>2614831
Quite simple actually.

First you must accept the fact that the universe exist.

>> No.2614858

>>2614833
>Only the Poincaré conjecture has been solved, by Grigori Perelman
>who declined the award.

fasdasfnasdfkasdnasdfk;nasfd goddamn how can a person so smart be so retard?

>> No.2614872

>>2614858
The guy that lives with his mother.

>> No.2614880

P = NP

N = 1 and/or P = 0

where's my million dollars?

>> No.2614886

>>2614833
>It could be possible that there's a polynomial-time method out there that's just so complex and difficult that nobody's found it yet.

That's the most interesting thing Ive ever heard.

Im working on it.

>> No.2614893

>>2614858
The guy is the most awesome fuck ever

>> No.2614901
File: 79 KB, 500x375, colbert-lockwood.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2614901

>>2614858
The Guy who doesn't give a shit about money or material possessions, is one of the fuckin happiest guys alive!

He made the right call. You are fuckin retarded. Grow the fuck up!

>> No.2614902

Imo this should be more than 1mil
this shit could be used for robots to perform calculations immediatly

>> No.2614908

>>2614893
>>2614901

he could have given it to charity then

>> No.2614910

The answer is clearly 3.

>> No.2614917

>solve P=NP
>don't tell anyone
>use it to figure out the secrets of the universe and become insanely rich
>when I'm about to die I release my proof
>fuck I'm too old to remember what it was
>die

>> No.2614931

>use it to figure out the secrets of the universe and become insanely rich

with a stupid algorithm?
goodluck.avi

>> No.2614937

>>2614902
No it can't. Sure is 7th graders in here. This is why moot is going to axe /sci/

>> No.2614941

>>2614937
>No it can't.

Ummm...

Yes it can?

>> No.2614946

>>2614941
Explain how buddy and you'll get a gold star for today's classwork.

>> No.2614950

>LOL THESE QUESTIONS ARE EASY I ALREADY SOLVED THE COMPUTER ONE GIVE ME 1 MIL DUCKS PLZ ROFL

4chan: Where intellect goes to die.

>> No.2614953

>>2614946
idk how its just a fuckin faster way to perform calculations.... it is what it is

>> No.2614962
File: 45 KB, 640x553, bucket-of-fail-demotivational-poste.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2614962

>>2614520
>simple math problem

>> No.2614965
File: 58 KB, 485x662, 1284437908001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2614965

>>2614953
Get out.

>> No.2614968

>>2614953
Jesus, why are you even on /sci/? It's obvious you can't understand anything being discussed here anyway.

>> No.2614982

>>2614968
ya but heres the thing my friend

intelligance isnt about understanding english words

im not interested in that

>> No.2615003

>>2614908

He doesn't cut his fingernails or his hair. Thus, he looks like a hobo.

Also, he declined the prize since he thought that the field of mathematics was going to shit, with cheating and being dishonest. He proved the Poincare conjecture, but then this Chinese dude basically said that his proof wasn't complete and here is the complete version so gimmie my 1 million. That proved his point for math people being a load of wankers. Taking the money and donating it all would only meant that he accepts the "you're awesome" title from the math community, but he doesn't want them to feel the satisfaction that he accepts them.

I think he also declined the Fields medal, which is the equivalent of the Nobel prize for math.

>> No.2615013

>>2615003
>he thought that the field of mathematics was going to shit

Is that even possible?

>> No.2615014

>>2614908
He just wasn't interestet in the media hype about his person that would have followed, I wouldn't need the money, I guess I would do the same.

>> No.2615022

>>2615013

Instead of being about the math, it turned out to be a circle jerk of people whoring for fame.

>> No.2615037

>>2615013
It's science in general, fundings are being cut so people are getting more desperate to show that they deserve them. Plagiarism is rife and getting worse, phd students work slave like hours for worse pay than a construction worker and don't receive any credit for published work. They are too stupid to unionise

>> No.2615044

>>2615037
When has science ever been about money?
I thought scientists were the people really who wanted to help the world..

I guess not ;_;

>> No.2615060

>>2615044
>When has science ever been about money?
>I thought scientists were the people really who wanted to help the world..

How old are you? I thought the same until I went to high school, where my math teacher was like, nope, don't major in math since there will be no use for you. mfw majoring in art now.

Well, scientists do want to help the world. However, lab equipment is pretty expensive. Also, if you're trying to medical.bio research, that shit is REALLY expensive. Someone should get rich, and give grants-oh wait, they already do.

Take for example medicine. It takes upwards of several million dollars and at least 15 years in the US to actually develop a drug, get it tested, approved, and on the market. Just to put things in perspective.

>> No.2615069

>>2615044
>I thought scientists were the people really who wanted to help the world..
>were

That's the important word, there are still a few people who believe and act that way but they are a shrinking minority in the mainstream.

>> No.2615073

and tbh if I was a scientist I would do shit just for the pure feeling of greatness when you accomplish shit that nobody has ever done before ect

>> No.2615082

>>2615003
He declined it because he used someone else's method to help him, and thought it was would dishonest of him to take all the credit.

>> No.2615113

science is not about helping others, its an art. at least how i see it.

>> No.2615162

>>2615113

This.

When I was in highschool understanding a problem by myself and solving it was the greatest feeling ever, did I give a flying fuck about the answer? No. Did I care that I got a good grade? Probably, but that wasn't the source of my enjoyment.