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

Burning Man's Mathematical Underbelly

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 44 posts

Re: Burning Man's Mathematical Underbelly

#31

Post by westoncb »

guest2143 wrote: post #29
westoncb wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main thing I wonder about this is whether it's misleading to say the soap bubble is 'solving' a problem of high computational complexity. If we were to form a description of its state evolving, framed as a computation, then that computation would be in such and such a complexity class—sure. But if you want to go ahead and say that soap bubble is literally computing in the same sense, you're making a number of imp…

My grad school professor was at a bar with a consultant friend who was trying to find the optimal wiring paths for routing expensive electric cables. My professor asked for the change in his pocket: they went to the hardware store and got plexiglass, dowel and drill. In the hotel room, the put together a model of the points to connect between the plexiglass sides and dunked it in the soapy hotel tub. the pattern the…

Okay, that makes sense to me—we can set up the physical system's initial conditions to mirror some problem we want solved, then let it do its thing and grab the solution back afterward.

That definitely feels better justified than the view I had of it, though it still has some weakness, I think.

From my understanding the justification for calling it computation comes down to: we can use the physical system to solve a problem that we would ordinarily approach computationally, therefore it must be computing too. Right?

Re: Burning Man's Mathematical Underbelly

#32

Post by JoeAltmaier »

westoncb wrote: post #28
QML wrote: post #25

We weren’t always so lucky. One year, before we’d even finished setting up the booth, a cadre of MIT undergraduate physicists stumped us with ‘Soap bubbles physically solve minimal surface problems. Are there any other physical phenomena that quickly solve NP-type problems?’ Anyone have more resources on this? I could only find a brief overview by Scott Aaronson [1]. [1]. https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/npcomple…

The main thing I wonder about this is whether it's misleading to say the soap bubble is 'solving' a problem of high computational complexity. If we were to form a description of its state evolving, framed as a computation, then that computation would be in such and such a complexity class—sure. But if you want to go ahead and say that soap bubble is literally computing in the same sense, you're making a number of imp…

Its an analog computer, plain and simple! Just because its not digital, doesn't mean its not 'really computing'

Re: Burning Man's Mathematical Underbelly

#33

Post by stevenhuang »

westoncb wrote: post #28
QML wrote: post #25

We weren’t always so lucky. One year, before we’d even finished setting up the booth, a cadre of MIT undergraduate physicists stumped us with ‘Soap bubbles physically solve minimal surface problems. Are there any other physical phenomena that quickly solve NP-type problems?’ Anyone have more resources on this? I could only find a brief overview by Scott Aaronson [1]. [1]. https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/npcomple…

The main thing I wonder about this is whether it's misleading to say the soap bubble is 'solving' a problem of high computational complexity. If we were to form a description of its state evolving, framed as a computation, then that computation would be in such and such a complexity class—sure. But if you want to go ahead and say that soap bubble is literally computing in the same sense, you're making a number of imp…

> physically solving

Seems to me you missed the emphasis on the _physical_ part. I don't see any philosophical quandaries from that since it was clear to me OP was not proposing the bubbles literally computed things.

Re: Burning Man's Mathematical Underbelly

#34

Post by westoncb »

stevenhuang wrote: post #33
westoncb wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main thing I wonder about this is whether it's misleading to say the soap bubble is 'solving' a problem of high computational complexity. If we were to form a description of its state evolving, framed as a computation, then that computation would be in such and such a complexity class—sure. But if you want to go ahead and say that soap bubble is literally computing in the same sense, you're making a number of imp…

> physically solving Seems to me you missed the emphasis on the _physical_ part. I don't see any philosophical quandaries from that since it was clear to me OP was not proposing the bubbles literally computed things.

That's fair—rereading more closely, their terminology is neutral on the matter. I jumped ahead because typically when I see this brought up that's the main point folks are talking about: since the physical system is 'computing' whatever, then let's get into the limits and capabilities and classifications of the computation etc., skipping over the question of whether it actually should be called 'computation'.

It's also just an interesting question imo—so I'd be okay hearing a discussion about it whether the original statement introduced the philosophical quandary or not.

Re: Burning Man's Mathematical Underbelly

#35

Post by bpp »

elcinr wrote: post #6
mkstowegnv wrote: post #4

A nice article for someone who knows nothing about Burning Man. If you've been, you will learn little that you don't already know. Burners choose to play in a difficult, often uncomfortable environment. They have a higher than average desire to be challenged - by everything from esoteric math and physics discussions to learning (as novices) moderately advanced contradancing (a radically inclusive danceform [1] that h…

>They have a higher than average desire to be challenged A lot of them also take a lot of MDMA and drink a lot of alcoholic beverages. There's something for everyone at BM.

You seem to be implying a dichotomy; it's definitely a work hard/play hard kind of town.

Re: Burning Man's Mathematical Underbelly

#36

Post by lifthearth »

DrHuman wrote: post #23
lifthearth wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hangovers are hell in that environment. If you got to burning man for the free drinks you're an idiot and won't come back. MDMA is fun to make a night of but not the drug of choice out there.

What's the drug of choice out there?

Sleep deprivation, bicycling, lots of water and downtempo electronica.

Re: Burning Man's Mathematical Underbelly

#37

Post by stevenhuang »

westoncb wrote: post #31
guest2143 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My grad school professor was at a bar with a consultant friend who was trying to find the optimal wiring paths for routing expensive electric cables. My professor asked for the change in his pocket: they went to the hardware store and got plexiglass, dowel and drill. In the hotel room, the put together a model of the points to connect between the plexiglass sides and dunked it in the soapy hotel tub. the pattern the…

Okay, that makes sense to me—we can set up the physical system's initial conditions to mirror some problem we want solved, then let it do its thing and grab the solution back afterward. That definitely feels better justified than the view I had of it, though it still has some weakness, I think. From my understanding the justification for calling it computation comes down to: we can use the physical system to solve a…

> From my understanding the justification for calling it computation comes down to: we can use the physical system to solve a problem that we would ordinarily approach computationally, therefore it must be computing too. Right?

To me, it feels like the intention of "computation" as used here is to give us a convenient way to describe what the physical system _appears_ to be doing (solving something the only way we know how--computationally) as opposed to saying: the rules of our universe influenced these particles to act in such a way that manifested in something interesting to us (an efficient solution to some problem).

Very interesting to think then if we can leverage physical systems (specifically non-quantum, to make that more interesting) to solve NP problems.

Re: Burning Man's Mathematical Underbelly

#38

Post by bonniemuffin »

DrHuman wrote: post #23
lifthearth wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hangovers are hell in that environment. If you got to burning man for the free drinks you're an idiot and won't come back. MDMA is fun to make a night of but not the drug of choice out there.

What's the drug of choice out there?

I generally recommend the playa shandy: lukewarm Tecate with a scoop of gatorade powder mixed into it. Hydrating, requires no refrigeration, and it's got what plants crave: it's got electrolytes.

Re: Burning Man's Mathematical Underbelly

#39

Post by bonniemuffin »

tibbon wrote: post #2

> you can get everybody onto the same page by talking about the complex plane in terms of the layout of Black Rock City: the Man is at zero, Center Camp (Esplanade and 6:00) is at i, the main entrance is around - 2i, the 3:00 and 9:00 plazas are at ± 1, and the Temple (a nondenominational, pan-belief, transient, and intentionally flammable structure) is at + i. While this is accurate, after seven years of attending B…

Hm, I think there's a typo in the article: center camp would be at -i, not i.

Anyway, it seems a bit strange to me to use the burning man map (a polar coordinate system) to describe a Cartesian-style grid like the complex plane.

Re: Burning Man's Mathematical Underbelly

#40

Post by marssaxman »

DrHuman wrote: post #23
lifthearth wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hangovers are hell in that environment. If you got to burning man for the free drinks you're an idiot and won't come back. MDMA is fun to make a night of but not the drug of choice out there.

What's the drug of choice out there?

All of the above, and some you've never heard of before.
Post reply on HN