Why don't you study Algorithms & Complexity?

[Anonymous No.8850765]

Why don't you study based Algorithms & Complexity theory?

[Anonymous No.8850785]

>>8850765
Because it's middle school level.

[Anonymous No.8850800]

>>8850785
Finally found someone that knows something. Since you know complexity theory, please inform me whether all problems that can be computed by a probabilistic TM (with error probability < 1/3) in polynomial time be solved by a deterministic TM in polynomial time?

[Anonymous No.8850870]

>>8850800
No, because you need to roll the dice a lot of times until you get the result, you end up on average having to roll it a lot. I can't explain it better, but it's NP, it's exponential. It's basically an exhaustive search, you're rolling the dice, you're shooting a barrel of fish and hoping that you hit the right one and your chances are about 2/3 but that doesn't exclude the event of you never reaching an answer by only getting an incredibly high number of sequential errors. Only an infinity of trials can guarantee success in this case.

[Anonymous No.8850874]

>>8850785
lmao

[Anonymous No.8850876]

>>8850870
That's not what OP asked. Please reread the question.

[Anonymous No.8850879]

>>8850876
but I'm OP, that guy wasn't OP

[Anonymous No.8850884]

>>8850879
Oh, apologies. I imagined you wrote >>8850800.

[Anonymous No.8850890]

>>8850800

Yes, I know BPP exists. Why don't you prove BPP⊆NP.

[Anonymous No.8850900]

>>8850870
>but it's NP, it's exponential

No and no. This is why cs majors belong in the >>>/g/hetto

[Anonymous No.8851382]

>>8850900
I doubt someone saying >>8850785 is a CS major brah.

[Anonymous No.8851527]

>>8850765
I studied some algos and complexity as part of my programming hobby

i used the MIT courses though

[Anonymous No.8851541]

>>8851527
Good for you anon. I say this in a non condensing way. I think that's awesome. I'm doing the same before I take an algorithms course and plan to follow it up with the advanced version

[Anonymous No.8852040]

>>8850765
Let's be honest with ourselves /sci/

99% of you, including pure mathfags would fail Google's on-site interviews in algorithms.

[Anonymous No.8852047]

cause I'm not a brainlet

[Anonymous No.8852057]

>>8852047
but you are, see >>8852040 and >>8850800

[Anonymous No.8852080]

>>8852040
>99% of you, including pure mathfags would fail Google's on-site interviews in algorithms.

t. brainlet that thinks he's a genius for summing all primes under a million.

[Anonymous No.8852095]

have an algorithms course over the summer, op. should be cool, i like the professor

[Anonymous No.8852099]

>>8852080
talk is cheap, trolling doesn't automatically make you able to solve algorithm problems brainlet.

[Anonymous No.8852123]

>>8850765

I do. I'm a graduate student in theoretical computer science.

[Anonymous No.8852128]

>>8852123
How does it feel to deal with people like:
>>8852080
>>8850785
>>8852047

These are undergrads that think you do web dev tier work.

[Anonymous No.8852130]

>>8852040
>>8852080
Then go pass the interview and get a job making $170k/yr with stock bonuses

src=I failed my google one lol fml my brain wouldnt work

[Anonymous No.8852132]

>>8852130

you should have told them you'd google the answer

[Anonymous No.8852133]

>>8852128

In my days as an undergraduate with interests in theory, it used to bother me somewhat.

I now have enough life experience to see that statements like the ones to which you refer are either made by trolls or people who are genuinely ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of the true content of the field. I also have enough worldly experience to know that my specialized knowledge is both useful and highly valued.

[Anonymous No.8852140]

I am in random graphs / structures / algorithms. I have some results in complexity theory, but it's not exactly my bread and butter.

Maybe it's because I don't have much experience with it, but it seems hard as fuck. I don't know how these bastards cook up their "gadgets" to show problems are NP complete etc.

[Anonymous No.8852149]

>>8852133

Agreed.

I did pure math as an undergraduate. I know people like >>8852080 are idiots and no longer pay attention to them.

[Anonymous No.8852153]

can't believe he's flashing gang signs in class.

[Anonymous No.8852171]

>>8852153
keeeek

[Anonymous No.8852273]

>>8852080
brainlet here. I know how to make a sieve of earthanus and the obvious way of brute force checking each number. Is there a better way to find primes that doesn't take either tons of time or tons of memory?

[Anonymous No.8852278]

sometimes i fantasize about deriving the speed of light from some type of automata and shaking up the world

i dropped out of undergrad tho lol

[Anonymous No.8852288]

>>8852040
im the 1% :)

>>8852273
what does "find" primes mean? if you want to generate all primes in a range you're not going to be able to do much better, the amount of primes in a range of size n is around n/logn.

if you want to check if one number is prime there are tons of crazy as fuck methods, there's pollard rho for instance and there's also probabilistic crazy stuff

[Anonymous No.8852317]

>>8852273
Yes there is. But you have to prove the Riemmann hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.8852322]

>>8852317
prove right***

[Anonymous No.8852347]

>>8852123
>theoretical computer science
Good luck with that.