4 ms·

"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

by 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
        I think the interest in P=NP specifically is for two reasons besides authority: - Anyone with a little bit of CS or programming background can understand the formulation of the problem, similar to how anyone can understand Fermat's Last Theorem. - There are only so many open problems that anyone can understand. Open problems are interesting to casual observers since they represent a boundary between the known and unknown, and since they invite the imagination to think up ways to attack them. Once you've invested yourself a little bit in the problem for these reasons, I think it's natural curiosity to want to spend twenty or thirty minutes, or more, learning about the outline of a novel proof strategy. That said, this article was a general introduction to what the problem is about, not a description of the proof.

by vecter 16y ago

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
        I think the interest in P=NP specifically is for two reasons besides authority: - Anyone with a little bit of CS or programming background can understand the formulation of the problem, similar to how anyone can understand Fermat's Last Theorem. - There are only so many open problems that anyone can understand. Open problems are interesting to casual observers since they represent a boundary between the known and unknown, and since they invite the imagination to think up ways to attack them. Once you've invested yourself a little bit in the problem for these reasons, I think it's natural curiosity to want to spend twenty or thirty minutes, or more, learning about the outline of a novel proof strategy. That said, this article was a general introduction to what the problem is about, not a description of the proof.