this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
256 points (92.1% liked)

Comic Strips

12015 readers
844 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LemmyNameMyself 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's a math mistake! It means we built the LHC the wrong way!

outcome 2

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Bad example. If they proved P = NP, that might be more on par with the others.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Find a computationally cheap way to factor large numbers --> banking system collapses

[–] Bye 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They would just use OTPs and would be fine. You’d start having armored trucks drive around with hard drives full of keys, but it would be ok.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Now I really want a dystopian novel about a world where p=np was proved and how the world adjusts to it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Isn't that what quantum computing is all about?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

to be fair, the earth would probably be pretty happy about that - humans just wouldn't be all too happy...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

in computer science, we talk about a mathematical construct called a machine. Different kinds of machines can solve different problems, and the turing machine is the most powerful. It can solve any problem that can be solved by a machine.

Turing machines operate one step at a time, with each step taking the same amount of time. The total number of steps it takes to solve a problem is the time, of that machine.

Some problems have a fixed number of inputs, like "list all the states". These machines have a fixed time. We call this constant time.

Others can have a variable number of inputs, like add up an arbitrary list of numbers. The longer the list is, the longer this takes.

An interesting, and important question is, how fast does the time of a machine go up as we add more inputs?

There are to major groups: the machines were the time goes up in a polynomial way (called P) and the ones were it goes up faster (called NP for non-polynomial). This means, for some machines, you can describe the time with an equation like time=inputs^n where n is any number.

A conjecture is that actually, all problems (that can be solved ) have a machine that can do in P time, thus all NP problems are actually P problems if we find the right machine.

This is important because much of our secret codes and other inportant things that we use today rely on those NP problems, which are really hard to solve. But if it turns out that they are P problems after all, there can be easy solutions.

[–] regular_human 2 points 1 year ago

Salesmen... salesmen everywhere

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

In general, P = NP means that some algorithms will become much faster to solve. We have some algorithms that we depend on being hard. Most notable is encryption. We depend on it being hard for am attacker to crack the encryption (but easy for someone who already knows the answer -- eg, your password). P = NP might (but not necessarily) make it easy enough for encryption to therefore be broken.

I say not necessarily because while P = NP does mean certain types of algorithms will become faster (in at least certain cases), it's still possible for them to be quite slow. P and NP refer to how long algorithms take, based on how they scale with input. P is polynomial and NP is non-polynomial. Polynomial functions scale far better than non-polynomial functions, but that doesn't mean they necessarily scale well, as there's plenty of types of polynomial functions, some which scale far, far better than others.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fun fact before the test of the first atomic bom, the scientists who made it believed there was non zero chance the it would ignite the atmosphere.

[–] draneceusrex 1 points 1 year ago

I too watched Oppenheimer in the theaters.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Physicists and chemists can't actually destroy the world in such ways. But creating a deadly virus and releasing it by mistake or not is quite a realistic possibility.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Well I haven't been following the story anymore for the last year or so, but there were some suspicions regarding that level 4 bio-lab doing research on Coronaviruses in the very epicenter of the 2019 pandemic, Wuhan...