Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What is not going to change in future?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 99 posts

Re: Ask HN: What is not going to change in future?

#61

Post by stephencanon »

Tainnor wrote: post #22

Theoretical CS fundamentals are not going to change. Practically, that means among other things: - Unless somebody finds a polynomial algorithm for an NP-complete problem (which is a taller order than just proving P=NP), several interesting problems will continue to be infeasible to solve exactly in the general case with large data. - If, in addition, quantum computers don't prove to be viable, commonly used cryptosy…

> (which is a taller order than just proving P=NP)

A proof that P=NP immediately gives a polynomial-time algorithm for NP complete problems via universal search. It’s so wildly impractical as to probably not change anything, but it _is_ in P.

Re: Ask HN: What is not going to change in future?

#62

Post by Tainnor »

Keegs wrote: post #35

Humans. Marcus Aurelius wrote Meditations about 2000 years ago and it’s still useful for navigating modern life. On the surface, life has changed a ton over generations because of technological advancement. Underneath that though, basic human worries and basic human needs haven’t changed and probably never will.

There's other examples like that. While I have many gripes with Plato, some of the arguments he makes and the themes he investigates still ring true 2,500 years later.

Re: Ask HN: What is not going to change in future?

#63

Post by GoldenRacer »

uvdn7 wrote: post #21
nuz wrote: post #14

Math, physics, chemistry won't change. Who knows if software will be nearly recognizable in 10-20 years from now, but the reality of the world will not.

Math, sure - doesn't the understanding of physics also go through changes? Do we really understand the reality of the world; or how do we know our current understanding of it won't change?

Asimov wrote an essay called "relativity of wrong" that I think does a good job of capturing the changes our understanding of the world goes through.

Yes, Einstein's theory of relativity was a change from Newtonian physics but it's a fairly minor correction for most practical purposes and Newtonian physics is still important to know and understand.

So yeah, our understanding of physics will likely change but it'll only matter in more and more extreme edge cases and will likely build on our current understanding. Maybe it'll result in us finally having fusion reactor, room temperature super conductors, or quantum computers but you're still going to get a roughly parabolic arc when you throw a ball through the air.

Re: Ask HN: What is not going to change in future?

#64

Post by Tainnor »

stephencanon wrote: post #61
Tainnor wrote: post #22

Theoretical CS fundamentals are not going to change. Practically, that means among other things: - Unless somebody finds a polynomial algorithm for an NP-complete problem (which is a taller order than just proving P=NP), several interesting problems will continue to be infeasible to solve exactly in the general case with large data. - If, in addition, quantum computers don't prove to be viable, commonly used cryptosy…

> (which is a taller order than just proving P=NP) A proof that P=NP immediately gives a polynomial-time algorithm for NP complete problems via universal search. It’s so wildly impractical as to probably not change anything, but it _is_ in P.

Fair enough, I wasn't aware.

Re: Ask HN: What is not going to change in future?

#66

Post by edanm »

stephencanon wrote: post #61
Tainnor wrote: post #22

Theoretical CS fundamentals are not going to change. Practically, that means among other things: - Unless somebody finds a polynomial algorithm for an NP-complete problem (which is a taller order than just proving P=NP), several interesting problems will continue to be infeasible to solve exactly in the general case with large data. - If, in addition, quantum computers don't prove to be viable, commonly used cryptosy…

> (which is a taller order than just proving P=NP) A proof that P=NP immediately gives a polynomial-time algorithm for NP complete problems via universal search. It’s so wildly impractical as to probably not change anything, but it _is_ in P.

What? That doesn't seem correct to me. (Since I'm not actually that fluent in CS complexity theory, I assume the problem is my understanding.)

Can you explain more about what universal search is, and/or where I can read about how it would solve the problem?

Re: Ask HN: What is not going to change in future?

#67

Post by stephencanon »

edanm wrote: post #66
stephencanon wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (which is a taller order than just proving P=NP) A proof that P=NP immediately gives a polynomial-time algorithm for NP complete problems via universal search. It’s so wildly impractical as to probably not change anything, but it _is_ in P.

What? That doesn't seem correct to me. (Since I'm not actually that fluent in CS complexity theory, I assume the problem is my understanding.) Can you explain more about what universal search is, and/or where I can read about how it would solve the problem?

The handwavy explanation is you can enumerate a list of all the turing machines. You run the first one for one step, then you run the first two for two steps, then the first three for three steps, etc, until one of them halts. If P=NP, this will happen in polynomial time, which gives you the algorithm you need.

Re: Ask HN: What is not going to change in future?

#68

Post by edanm »

stephencanon wrote: post #67
edanm wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? That doesn't seem correct to me. (Since I'm not actually that fluent in CS complexity theory, I assume the problem is my understanding.) Can you explain more about what universal search is, and/or where I can read about how it would solve the problem?

The handwavy explanation is you can enumerate a list of all the turing machines. You run the first one for one step, then you run the first two for two steps, then the first three for three steps, etc, until one of them halts. If P=NP, this will happen in polynomial time, which gives you the algorithm you need.

I'm not sure I understand. How would a list of all Turing machines possibly help when trying to solve a specific problem in P time? Are they built in a way that is relevant to the problem you're trying to solve (if so, how?).

Re: Ask HN: What is not going to change in future?

#70

Post by jerf »

azan_ wrote: post #51
jerf wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if an AI was developed to the point that it could do a full requirements analysis, executive/managers/high status people will still want someone else to do it. You're not going to get a CEO to sit down with such a system and determine requirements.

Why wouldn't AI also take the role of that "someone else"?

"Someone else" isn't going to allow it.

If AIs seriously threaten our real elites, AI will be destroyed.

Post reply on HN