tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Dont arsk us about:)

Hailong Dao comments on "Dont arsk us about:" (8266)

Hailong Dao — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:56:58 -0700

@Kevin: thanks for the links, very interesting.

A constructive and thoughtful conversation seems to be happening here:

http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/update-on-deolalikars-proof-that-p≠np

in which Terry Tao has a summary:

http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/update-on-deolalikars-proof-that-p≠np/#comment-4885

May be we can redirect vague questions about the new proof there?

Andrea comments on "Dont arsk us about:" (8265)

Andrea — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:50:05 -0700

I confess that if I did not know what P vs. NP is, I could not infer anything sensible from the article. Still, I have read worst reports on the Poincaré conjecture.

Kevin Buzzard comments on "Dont arsk us about:" (8264)

Kevin Buzzard — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:25:02 -0700

Aah, I see now: they've read

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/

and are inferring from this that the experts are skeptical.

Kevin Buzzard comments on "Dont arsk us about:" (8263)

Kevin Buzzard — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:20:11 -0700

Slightly incomprehensible BBC news story about the claim at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10938302

Kevin Buzzard comments on "Dont arsk us about:" (8259)

Kevin Buzzard — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:26:01 -0700

@David: yes, it's not the maths questions I fear, it's the constant trickle of "hey guys, did you hear that someone has announced that P!=NP ???" questions that appear like chinese water torture in a worst case scenario.

Will Jagy comments on "Dont arsk us about:" (8253)

Will Jagy — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:17:28 -0700

I think RH is mentioned in Thud.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

About the implications of P != NP for BQP:

Soul Music, pages 1-2

No one knows why Death started to take a practical interest in the human beings he had worked with for so long. It was probably just curiosity. Even the most efficient ratcatcher will sooner or later take an interest in rats. They might watch rats live and die, and record every detail of rat existence, although they may never themselves know what it is like to run the maze.
But if it is true that the act of observing changes the thing which is observed,* it's even more true that it changes the observer.
Mort and Ysabell got married.
They had a child.

This is also a story about sex and drugs and Music With Rocks In.
Well...
...one out of three ain't bad.
Actually, it's only thirty-three percent, but it could be worse.

______________

*Because of Quantum.

AndrewL comments on "Dont arsk us about:" (8252)

AndrewL — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:11:32 -0700

What,no solution to the Riemann Hypothesis?

Will Jagy comments on "Dont arsk us about:" (8251)

Will Jagy — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:08:27 -0700

http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Evadne_Cake
.................
The Don't Ask list is also in Men At Arms, page 67 out of 377 in paperback.
.............
On page 92 (of 336) of Reaper Man:

Behind them, the priests and the wizards were screaming chin to chin.
The Chief Priest moved a little closer.
``I think I could be strong enough to master and defeat just a little snare,'' he said. `` I haven't felt like this since Mrs. Cake was one of my flock.''
``Mrs. Cake? What's a Mrs. Cake?''
``You have...ghastly Things from the Dungeon Dimensions and things, yes? Terrible hazards of your ungodly profession?'' said the Chief Priest.
``Yes.''
``We have someone called Mrs. Cake.''
Ridcully gave him an enquiring look.
``Don't ask,'' said the priest, shuddering. ``Just be grateful you'll never have to find out.''
Ridcully silently passed him the brandy.
........................
And when Moist hires a very experienced golem, Anghammarad, to be a postman, the golem recalls delivering messages in a past age:

‘You really used to deliver messages for kings?’ said Groat.
‘Many Kings,’ said Anghammarad. ‘Many Empires. Many Gods. Many Gods. All Gone. All Things Go.’ The golem’s voice got deeper, as if he was quoting from memory. ‘Neither Deluge Nor Ice Storm Nor The Black Silence Of The Netherhells Shall Stay These Messengers About Their Sacred Business. Do Not Ask Us About Sabre-Tooth Tigers, Tar Pits, Big Green Things With Teeth Or The Goddess Czol’
‘You had big green things with teeth back then?’ said Tropes.
‘Bigger. Greener. More Teeth,’ rumbled Anghammarad.
‘And the goddess Czol?’ said Moist.
‘Do Not Ask.’

Hailong Dao comments on "Dont arsk us about:" (8250)

Hailong Dao — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:59:39 -0700

@David and Jonas: I certainly appreciate the importance of P!=NP and agree with you that the actual contents of some of the questions look reasonable. What is a bit annoying is many of them cite the new proof as the motivation. As many people have pointed out, in a few months it will be perhaps a much better time for asking.

David Speyer comments on "Dont arsk us about:" (8249)

David Speyer — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:52:01 -0700

While this is funny, I for one don't agree with it. People becoming excited about computational complexity is good and, when they ask questions at the MO level, I am glad about it. In particular, I am glad that the question about the implications of P != NP for BQP is reopened.

What is annoying is people submitting "questions" which read like press releases. (Like this one.) It's a natural human reaction to want to say "Did you hear the news? Isn't it great?!". I certainly remember passing copies of "PRIMES is in P" around to my friends and jabbering about the excitement. But I think most members of MO want to keep our focus on actual questions, and save the open-ended conversation for tea.

Jonas Meyer comments on "Dont arsk us about:" (8246)

Jonas Meyer — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:00:26 -0700

The off-topic questions about proofs are unfortunate, but maybe the buzz will have positive side effects of attracting on-topic questions about the P vs. NP problem, and attracting experts to answer these questions.

Andrew Stacey comments on "Dont arsk us about:" (8244)

Andrew Stacey — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:23:03 -0700

@Yemon: "Going Postal" is .... the riiiiiiight answer!

(Though to be pedantic, a variant of it does appear in an earlier book - can't remember which off the top of my head - but Going Postal is what I'm reading right now so was the one to hand.)

Yemon Choi comments on "Dont arsk us about:" (8243)

Yemon Choi — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:06:20 -0700

+1 to Andrew for the Discworld reference (Going Postal, isn't it?) and I am inclined to agree with Kevin. As for Hailong's implicit question, I guess the free group factor problem isn't Slashdottable (as yet, thankfully).

Hailong Dao comments on "Dont arsk us about:" (8242)

Hailong Dao — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:58:44 -0700

Speaking of the devil, here is the latest question on MO: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/35151/if-pnp-is-proven-what-is-the-implication-towards-bqp.

It almost made me want to ask this question on the front page: Why is this new "proof" of P!=NP so uncontrollably exciting?

Kevin Buzzard comments on "Dont arsk us about:" (8241)

Kevin Buzzard — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:49:07 -0700

+1 for the last one. But no-one who is going to ask about P!=NP is reading this anyway. I fear a deluge, esp if the proof doesn't get shot down within a few days...

Andrew Stacey comments on "Dont arsk us about:" (8229)

Andrew Stacey — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:55:55 -0700

rocks
troll's with sticks
All sorts of dragons
Mrs Cake
Huje green things with teeth
Any kinds of black dogs with orange eyebrows
Rains of spaniel's
fog
Mrs Cake
Proofs of P ≠ NP