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

Machine learning leads mathematicians to unsolvable problem

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 98 posts

Re: Machine learning leads mathematicians to unsolvable problem

#41

Post by etrautmann »

eanzenberg wrote: post #38
CuriousCosmic wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and fees for publishing. i.e. Why should people have to pay to view the results of what is often publicly funded research? Even more so why should researchers have to pay to publish work that the publishers profit off of but the researchers don't.

Because being a peer reviewer shouldn’t be done for free? Do you like being paid to work? Because Nature has established themselves as a premier journal over the the past 150 years and are known for their quality? Or maybe I’m just taking crazy pills..

Peer reviewers are not ever paid, making this whole arrangement somewhat bizarre and unsavory to reviewers and authors alike.

Re: Machine learning leads mathematicians to unsolvable problem

#42

Post by hannob »

eanzenberg wrote: post #38
CuriousCosmic wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and fees for publishing. i.e. Why should people have to pay to view the results of what is often publicly funded research? Even more so why should researchers have to pay to publish work that the publishers profit off of but the researchers don't.

Because being a peer reviewer shouldn’t be done for free? Do you like being paid to work? Because Nature has established themselves as a premier journal over the the past 150 years and are known for their quality? Or maybe I’m just taking crazy pills..

There's a strange thing, there seems to be a universal rule of Open Access discussions:

There will always be someone who defends publishers based on not knowing anything about how scientific publishing works.

Re: Machine learning leads mathematicians to unsolvable problem

#43

Post by bnegreve »

eanzenberg wrote: post #38
CuriousCosmic wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and fees for publishing. i.e. Why should people have to pay to view the results of what is often publicly funded research? Even more so why should researchers have to pay to publish work that the publishers profit off of but the researchers don't.

Because being a peer reviewer shouldn’t be done for free? Do you like being paid to work? Because Nature has established themselves as a premier journal over the the past 150 years and are known for their quality? Or maybe I’m just taking crazy pills..

That's the problem: publishers don't pay reviewers but charge for their work.

Re: Machine learning leads mathematicians to unsolvable problem

#44

Post by galaxyLogic »

ngcc_hk wrote: post #34
byebyetech wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is the meaning of "ML experts" if all they do is trial and loss experiments! Is Math PhD just used for hiring signal rather than actual requirements to do ML projects?

May be Ml is an empirical subject more than a theoretical subject. It is more biology than physics. More astronomy ... even is the subject is created does not meant it follows rules. After all if intelligence comes out artificially, I hope it does not have rule.

Great point ML takes much of its inspiration from simulating brains. Therefore studying such artificial brains is much like studying biology and thus to a large degree empirical I would assume.

Re: Machine learning leads mathematicians to unsolvable problem

#46

Post by curiousStarDust »

Not completely on the subject, but I had to read the first sentence 5 times, before I was able to understand its meaning. Then I realized it was too long, so modified it to following version. Is it better or worse?

"A team of researchers has stumbled on a question that is mathematically unanswerable. It is linked to logical paradoxes, that were discovered by Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel in the 1930s and it can’t be solved using standard mathematics."

Re: Machine learning leads mathematicians to unsolvable problem

#47

Post by Cacti »

chaboud wrote: post #39

One doesn't need to go back to Gödel for this to make it a "huh" moment. Instead, go back to 2006 to make it a "duh" moment. Aggregability is NP-Hard: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://... That is, even for linear systems, determining whether or not macrovariables (e.g. complete eigenvector sets, complete embeddings) exist for a given space is an NP-Hard problem. With linear systems serving…

NP-hard and undecidability are completely different things. They’re barely on the same planet.

Re: Machine learning leads mathematicians to unsolvable problem

#48

Post by elliotec »

curiousStarDust wrote: post #46

Not completely on the subject, but I had to read the first sentence 5 times, before I was able to understand its meaning. Then I realized it was too long, so modified it to following version. Is it better or worse? "A team of researchers has stumbled on a question that is mathematically unanswerable. It is linked to logical paradoxes, that were discovered by Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel in the 1930s and it can’t…

Yeah, it’s a bit better. Not sure how much, maybe more for non native speakers?

Re: Machine learning leads mathematicians to unsolvable problem

#49

Post by sn41 »

eanzenberg wrote: post #38
CuriousCosmic wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and fees for publishing. i.e. Why should people have to pay to view the results of what is often publicly funded research? Even more so why should researchers have to pay to publish work that the publishers profit off of but the researchers don't.

Because being a peer reviewer shouldn’t be done for free? Do you like being paid to work? Because Nature has established themselves as a premier journal over the the past 150 years and are known for their quality? Or maybe I’m just taking crazy pills..

Peer review is not paid work. Mostly it is done as an overhead that is understood as part of being an active researcher.

I would even venture to say that most researchers will be against the idea of paid reviews, just like Amazon found out that paid product reviews are a very bad idea.

Re: Machine learning leads mathematicians to unsolvable problem

#50

Post by diegoperini »

foxrob92 wrote: post #40
chaboud wrote: post #39

One doesn't need to go back to Gödel for this to make it a "huh" moment. Instead, go back to 2006 to make it a "duh" moment. Aggregability is NP-Hard: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://... That is, even for linear systems, determining whether or not macrovariables (e.g. complete eigenvector sets, complete embeddings) exist for a given space is an NP-Hard problem. With linear systems serving…

I mean, haven't the authors shown that the problem is "worse" than NP-hard? They have shown it to be undecidable?

How is worse than NP-hard named in the field? NP-impossible?

Disclaimer: I'm really noob, not asking it sarcastically.

Post reply on HN