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

42 is found to be the sum of three cubes

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–256 of 256 posts

Re: 42 is found to be the sum of three cubes

#251

Post by CharityEngine »

Hey guys, Mark from Charity Engine here.

If anyone else could use planetary-scale computing (potentially for free, if your project is really cool), then come and talk to us.

The CE grid has over 2 million CPU cores, 600k+ unique IP addresses, can run anything in a Docker container and has integration with Ethereum. Adding Kubernetes and GPU support as we speak.

You can fire it up with 8 clicks, easier than AWS. This is literally a fully-functional worldwide computer.

PS. It's not just ridiculously huge, it is also ridiculously cheap :)

Re: 42 is found to be the sum of three cubes

#252

Post by CharityEngine »

MertsA wrote: post #241
chrisau wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am interested to learn more about how they solved it if not brute force. "Professors Booker and Sutherland's solution for 42 would be found by using Charity Engine; a 'worldwide computer' that harnesses idle, unused computing power from over 500,000 home PCs to create a crowd-sourced, super-green platform made entirely from otherwise wasted capacity." https://phys.org/news/2019-09-sum-cubes-solvedusing-real-lif..…

>SUSTAINABLE, ULTRA-LOW CARBON - using PCs that already exist but are just underused Wow, do they honestly believe their own marketing nonsense? There's no way the PUE and power efficiency of a bunch of old random desktop computers is going to come close to beating a modern Amazon, Google, or Microsoft datacenter. Cost wise, yeah sure, I'd bet it would be cheaper even with the lower efficiency and increased power usa…

We don't need the datacenters at all. That's the difference.

No facilities. No hardware. No bricks, mortar, shipping, mining of metals or rare earths. No replacing of millions of obsolete machines every three years. We tread lighter than any datacenter owner can ever dream of

Re: 42 is found to be the sum of three cubes

#253

Post by paulmd »

jaclaz wrote: post #147
paulmd wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What do you get when you multiply six by nine?"

"I may be a sorry case, but I don't write jokes in base 13."

The people who were looking for a trick are missing the point. The joke is that the answer doesn't work.

What do you get when you multiply six by nine? Forty-two. That's the meaning of life.

"We apologize for the inconvenience."

Re: 42 is found to be the sum of three cubes

#255

Post by scorpion032 »

nserrino wrote: post #230
jjtheblunt wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the set of all triples of integers be enumerable, because (inductively) the set of all pairs of integers is enumerable (thanks, Cantor)? Then, if one could enumerate all triples of integers, one could, for each triple, calculate the sum of the cubes. So, integers which are sums of cubes are enumerable. That doesn't mean they're a known recursive set, just recursively enumerable. Am I missing something? Perhaps…

For a^3 + b^3 + c^3 = 42, You can enumerate a,b pairs and then you need to check whether the "locked in" value of c^3 is a cube. However imagine it takes 1ns to validate a given pair [a,b]. The eventual solution was [-80538738812075974, 80435758145817515, 12602123297335631]. Since no combination of 3 positive (and therefore small) numbers has worked, we know that one of a,b,c are negative. Let's assume at least one o…

Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASoz_NuIvP0

I just came out watching the solution to how he actually solved it.

Re: 42 is found to be the sum of three cubes

#256

Post by seph-reed »

cyphar wrote: post #214
seph-reed wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I do agree with you, I wouldn't be so quick to cast out numerology as a thing of importance. Hippies are pretty decent at sniffing things out, even if they explain them in totally insane ways. EDIT: If you're opposed to this comment, I request that you explain your reasoning. Making the assumption that happiness is of any value, there's actually quite a bit to dig into here.

Numerology is factually not a branch of mathematics. As for "hippies are pretty decent at sniffing things out", just because someone was correct about something in the past (despite a lack of evidence) does not make them correct today if they still lack evidence. The burden of proof is on numerologists to show that they are correct, not on everyone else to disprove it.

Not saying it's correct. But given a world of infinite choices, sometimes it's helpful to look around at what's rising in importance on it's own. Even if there's no good reason.
Post reply on HN