5 ms·

Maybe these "dummies" would benefit more by learning about social media or python programming. Why fixate on this particular problem as opposed to learning all

Maybe these "dummies" would benefit more by learning about social media or python programming. Why fixate on this particular problem as opposed to learning all sorts of other things that are more useful?

vecter 16y ago
"Useful" is a particularly subjective word, and shouldn't necessarily be the metric by which we measure the opportunity cost of our time. Many advances in the world that you and I take for granted are the direct result of pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. When Einstein developed relativity, he wasn't trying to figure out how to sync satellites to make GPS more accurate (and obviously satellites didn't exist at the time). But if that theory was never developed, we wouldn't have all the luxuries that GPS provides for us. That is just a trifling example of how the quest for deeper understanding of fundamental knowledge has made the world a better place. Lots of people on hacker news love writing code. That's great, seriously. Looking down on others because their interests aren't as purportedly "useful" as yours is pretty arrogant and shortsighted.
- amichail 16y ago
  When Einstein developed relativity, he wasn't trying to figure out how to sync satellites to make GPS more accurate (and obviously satellites didn't exist at the time). These "dummies" have essentially zero chance of making any meaningful contribution to the P vs NP problem.
  - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
    It is said that Wiles first came across the statement of Fermat's Last Theorem in a popular math book. Who knows who might read this article/item and possibly start working on it. More, people might read and understand this, and then pass it on to students as one of the current great mysteries in math and science. Who knows where it might go? To think otherwise is amazingly short-sighted.
  - vecter 16y ago
    So they shouldn't be interested in learning about it?
    - amichail 16y ago
      But why this as opposed to a whole host of other things that they might learn instead? I think people should think more carefully about how they spend their time.
      - mquander 16y ago
        If you're being sincere, I suggest that this is the generally-held position on this thread of discussion: A) A lot of people are immensely fascinated by questions in theoretical science and mathematics, including P=NP. B) A lot of people enjoy learning about things regardless of obvious utility. Personally, my choice of topics to spend time studying has nothing to do with whether it will pay off for me at some point. It's a pleasant luxury of modern life that many people can afford to do that. C) If you are in camps A and B, it seems extremely arrogant and insulting when you suggest "Why this?" and "I think people should think more carefully about how they spend their time." Since you seem to have no perception of why anyone is fascinated by this work, it appears completely nonsensical to suggest these things to communities populated with a bunch of people who are clearly interested in it, or to readers of a big blog post discussing it. If you really have something to say about points A or B, or something else, I wish you would say it instead of wrapping it in these bizarre, judgemental insults.
        amichail 16y ago
        Basically this interest in P!=NP is like yielding to authority. I would like to decide for myself what's worth studying -- not have it dictated to me. Having said this, of course anyone who has an interest in computing should know what the P vs NP problem is about, but learning enough to be able to follow proof strategy for P vs NP is another matter.
        mquander 16y ago
pvg 16y ago
"The short answer is: the biggest unsolved problem of theoretical computer science, and one of the deepest questions ever asked by human beings!" presumably, 'reading' is one of those more useful things that are worth learning, as well.
- amichail 16y ago
  But assuming P!=NP, it's resolution will probably have very little impact on the world.
  - waqf 16y ago
    That's (again, probably) not true, although none of the recent flurry of blog posts have explained why not (possibly because it's hard to make this convincing if you're not familiar with mathematical research). The point is that solutions to such problems as this do not exist in a vacuum: even with the million-dollar incentive for solving the particular stated problems we do not expect that they will be solved without building a network of related sub-theories and sub-theorems, reusable tools which will also help with solving future problems which we don't yet even know enough to formulate. Fermat's Last Theorem was a good example of this: nobody cares about sums of nth powers, but everybody cares about the Mordell conjecture, Taniyama–Shimura–Weil conjecture etc. which were proved along the way. FLT itself is just a line in the sand to illustrate how far we've come since 1637.
    - amichail 16y ago
      Is it likely that a proof of P!=NP will give insight into designing more efficient algorithms? Or mostly insight into proving other lower bounds?
      - pvg 16y ago
        I think his argument is that such a proof would represent a significant advance in human knowledge. At its time of origin, the special theory of relativity didn't give anyone nicer cars, either.
itg 16y ago
Do Not Feed the Troll
- DarrenMills 16y ago
  It was my comment that inspired this; and I wasn't trolling anyone.

vecter 16y ago

"Useful" is a particularly subjective word, and shouldn't necessarily be the metric by which we measure the opportunity cost of our time. Many advances in the world that you and I take for granted are the direct result of pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. When Einstein developed relativity, he wasn't trying to figure out how to sync satellites to make GPS more accurate (and obviously satellites didn't exist at the time). But if that theory was never developed, we wouldn't have all the luxuries that GPS provides for us. That is just a trifling example of how the quest for deeper understanding of fundamental knowledge has made the world a better place. Lots of people on hacker news love writing code. That's great, seriously. Looking down on others because their interests aren't as purportedly "useful" as yours is pretty arrogant and shortsighted.

amichail 16y ago
When Einstein developed relativity, he wasn't trying to figure out how to sync satellites to make GPS more accurate (and obviously satellites didn't exist at the time). These "dummies" have essentially zero chance of making any meaningful contribution to the P vs NP problem.
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  It is said that Wiles first came across the statement of Fermat's Last Theorem in a popular math book. Who knows who might read this article/item and possibly start working on it. More, people might read and understand this, and then pass it on to students as one of the current great mysteries in math and science. Who knows where it might go? To think otherwise is amazingly short-sighted.
- vecter 16y ago
  So they shouldn't be interested in learning about it?
  - amichail 16y ago
    But why this as opposed to a whole host of other things that they might learn instead? I think people should think more carefully about how they spend their time.
    - mquander 16y ago
      If you're being sincere, I suggest that this is the generally-held position on this thread of discussion: A) A lot of people are immensely fascinated by questions in theoretical science and mathematics, including P=NP. B) A lot of people enjoy learning about things regardless of obvious utility. Personally, my choice of topics to spend time studying has nothing to do with whether it will pay off for me at some point. It's a pleasant luxury of modern life that many people can afford to do that. C) If you are in camps A and B, it seems extremely arrogant and insulting when you suggest "Why this?" and "I think people should think more carefully about how they spend their time." Since you seem to have no perception of why anyone is fascinated by this work, it appears completely nonsensical to suggest these things to communities populated with a bunch of people who are clearly interested in it, or to readers of a big blog post discussing it. If you really have something to say about points A or B, or something else, I wish you would say it instead of wrapping it in these bizarre, judgemental insults.
      - amichail 16y ago
        Basically this interest in P!=NP is like yielding to authority. I would like to decide for myself what's worth studying -- not have it dictated to me. Having said this, of course anyone who has an interest in computing should know what the P vs NP problem is about, but learning enough to be able to follow proof strategy for P vs NP is another matter.
        mquander 16y ago

pvg 16y ago

"The short answer is: the biggest unsolved problem of theoretical computer science, and one of the deepest questions ever asked by human beings!" presumably, 'reading' is one of those more useful things that are worth learning, as well.

amichail 16y ago
But assuming P!=NP, it's resolution will probably have very little impact on the world.
- waqf 16y ago
  That's (again, probably) not true, although none of the recent flurry of blog posts have explained why not (possibly because it's hard to make this convincing if you're not familiar with mathematical research). The point is that solutions to such problems as this do not exist in a vacuum: even with the million-dollar incentive for solving the particular stated problems we do not expect that they will be solved without building a network of related sub-theories and sub-theorems, reusable tools which will also help with solving future problems which we don't yet even know enough to formulate. Fermat's Last Theorem was a good example of this: nobody cares about sums of nth powers, but everybody cares about the Mordell conjecture, Taniyama–Shimura–Weil conjecture etc. which were proved along the way. FLT itself is just a line in the sand to illustrate how far we've come since 1637.
  - amichail 16y ago
    Is it likely that a proof of P!=NP will give insight into designing more efficient algorithms? Or mostly insight into proving other lower bounds?
    - pvg 16y ago
      I think his argument is that such a proof would represent a significant advance in human knowledge. At its time of origin, the special theory of relativity didn't give anyone nicer cars, either.

itg 16y ago

Do Not Feed the Troll

DarrenMills 16y ago
It was my comment that inspired this; and I wasn't trolling anyone.