[HN Gopher] Mathematician Solves Sensitivity Conjecture in Two P... ___________________________________________________________________ Mathematician Solves Sensitivity Conjecture in Two Pages (2019) Author : kjhughes Score : 211 points Date : 2021-02-12 15:45 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org) | LolWolf wrote: | The sensitivity conjecture is actually pretty simple to | understand, intuitively. (Its reduction to applications, and its | proof, of course, are both a little bit more of the "magical" | parts so-to-speak.) | | The 'canonical' way of thinking about it is in terms of the | _hypercube graph_ , which is defined in the following way: | | - The dimension-0 hypercube graph is... just a single vertex. | . | | - The dimension-1 hypercube graph is two vertices connected by a | single edge. [?]-[?] | | - The dimension-2 hypercube graph is four vertices, connected in | a square pattern: [?]-[?] | | | [?]-[?] | | - The dimension-3 hypercube graph is the graph representing a | cube! | | - The dimension-4 hypercube graph is the graph which takes a | cube, makes a copy, and then connects the corresponding vertices. | | ... | | - The dimension-n hypercube graph is the graph which takes a | dimension-(n-1) hypercube graph, makes a copy, and connects the | corresponding vertices. | | Ok, so let's play a game (for now, think about the 3-dimensional | cube graph as a concrete example): if you could color the | vertices of the cube red or green, what is the largest number of | red (or green) vertices you can find such that no two of the same | color are adjacent to each other? Note that the 3D hypercube has | 23=8 vertices, and, more generally, the nD hypercube has 2n | vertices, so you have a lot of vertices to color :) | | So, it turns out (and I will give it to you as an exercise!) that | you can color 2n-1 vertices of the cube with two colors without | any vertices of a single color being adjacent to each other, | _but_ , if you try changing _the color of any one vertex_ then at | least one of the colors will have (at least) [?]n neighbors that | are the same color! (It may be worth reading this once or twice | :) | | This is the sensitivity conjecture! The fact that changing any | one color would immediately imply that now you have at least [?]n | neighbors that are all of the same color. (This is a slightly | funky restatement of it, the usual one is in terms of subgraphs | or boolean functions, but one is easily mapped to the other.) | | It turns out a lot of important problems (in things like voting | systems, for example) can be reduced to proving this conjecture, | which gives a rather neat set of results "for free" when proving | it, and why it's been such an interesting object for the past | uhh, quite a few years in computer science :) | LolWolf wrote: | This is a bit of a random comment @dang, but it's always a bit | of a shame when a long explanation gets posted and the comment | that it is responding to dies or is downvoted for some reason | or another. I've seen this happen a few times and am wondering | if there is a possible fix? | | I guess this is the risk one takes when responding to comments, | but it feels like there might be a reasonable tradeoff/possible | solution! :) | dang wrote: | Yes, it's a problem. We can do things but unfortunately | they're all manual for now, so we have to know about it, and | that's a bottleneck. Thanks for letting us know! | dang wrote: | This subthread was originally in reply to | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26116077 but we detached | it so that it can float freely to a higher place. | swagonomixxx wrote: | I like graph theory a lot (even though my prof in uni was | horrible at teaching it). One thing I like about it is at least | we can easily visualize most graphs, as opposed to say, | n-dimensional spaces from real analysis. I also like that | coloring vertices is a thing, and that so many problems can be | represented by graphs and we can apply so many graph algorithms | on top of those graph representations. | | One thing that always makes me laugh though is the terminology | in math. Things like "hypercube" just get a chuckle out of me. | | I didn't know what the sensitivity conjecture is but your | explanation using coloring a graph is very straightforward. | LolWolf wrote: | > One thing that always makes me laugh though is the | terminology in math. Things like "hypercube" just get a | chuckle out of me. | | Oh just wait until you get to physics ! :) | | > I didn't know what the sensitivity conjecture is but your | explanation using coloring a graph is very straightforward. | | Kidding aside, thank you! | Agentlien wrote: | I remember when this came out. I read the paper out of curiosity | and was amazed how simple it was to follow, even though I hadn't | even heard of the sensitivity conjecture before. It's beautiful. | TheRealPomax wrote: | When of course, in reality rather than clickbaity titles, they | only wrote up the final, concise proof using two pages _after_ | thinking about, and working on, the problem for seven years, | building on decades of specific research combined with seven | years of learning new mathematics (new to Huang, not necessarily | new to the world) that might offer ways into cracking this | problem. | robotresearcher wrote: | I don't see anyone arguing otherwise, nor is the title | clickbait. The concision and comprehensibility of the proof is | part of what makes it remarkable. Just like the opposite size | and complexity of Wiles' 'Last Theorem' proof was part of its | story. | jessriedel wrote: | I suppose the title could be slightly more accurate by | replacing "solves" with "proves", but I think it's fine. The | fact that proof is only 2 pages long is highly notable. This is | not a case of a headline making a typical event look more | notable than it is. | rickmode wrote: | "Simple != easy." --Rich Hickey | | The closest I get in my career is striving for the simplest | approach to building something in software, which is not all | the easy path. The easy path always leads to complexity -- just | look at any enterprise software project that's more than a year | to two old. | | I find the process of striving for simplicity gratifying and | reading this article about similar -- but much longer process | -- put a smile on my face. | breck wrote: | The hard part about new simple things is getting people to | understand the implications. Most people will shrug off | something new and simple as the same as just another new | complexity, when the implications are vastly different. | dstick wrote: | In that line of thinking's defense: do you marvel at the | wonders of science and human achievement every time you switch | on a lightbulb? | | The hardest thing in the world is to explain something in a | simple way. With two pages - I say: Bravo! | ahmedalsudani wrote: | Nothing clickbaity about the title. It says two pages without | describing how much effort went into those two pages. | | Two pages does not imply it's easy. It implies it's elegant, | which probably requires a fair amount of effort. | smnrchrds wrote: | _In his Lettres Provinciales, the French philosopher and | mathematician Blaise Pascal famously wrote: | | I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the | time._ | | https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2014/02/03/270680304/this-. | .. | [deleted] | bidirectional wrote: | It's been interesting to watch the rapid degradation of the | term clickbait, we've quickly gone from the original targets | of the term ("Local mother discovers one small trick", "He | did X, you WON'T believe what happened next"), to it now | being used in probably a third of HN's comment sections to | describe any title which is even mildly editorialised and not | a longwinded statement of plain facts. | totalZero wrote: | ^^ the No True Clickbait fallacy | | Personally I feel that the mathematician should have used | smaller font. Could have gotten it down to one page. | ahmedalsudani wrote: | Same with troll. Anybody you disagree with is a troll | nowadays. | | Thinking about it some more, that also applies to "alt- | right", "SJW", "Nazi", ... | xmprt wrote: | If anything I think the term clickbait is used more | appropriately now. "Local mother discovers one small trick" | is terrible clickbait because most people are used to it | now in the same way a Nigerian prince scam won't work on | most people. | | Clickbait is anything that gets you to click on an article. | In some cases, it can be good clickbait and an equally good | article and in other cases it can be bad clickbait where | the title states facts but the facts are misleading or | require a specific interpretation or need more context or | don't accurately describe the essence of the article. | ErikVandeWater wrote: | The connotation of clickbait is essential to its | definition. | crb002 wrote: | Is there an OEIS sequence? Seems like something there should be | nice combinatorial formulas for at the different levels of | sensitivity. | dls2016 wrote: | I never learned Fourier analysis of boolean functions... but this | result smells like an uncertainty principle. | rsp1984 wrote: | Should add (2019) to the title. | dang wrote: | It's there now. Thanks! | Scene_Cast2 wrote: | The concept of sensitivity is actually not too far from the | questions asked in ML. "The minimum number of bit flips needed to | change the answer" -> adversarial attacks, prediction stability, | corner case performance. "Which bit flips are needed to change | the answer" -> feature importance. | adamnemecek wrote: | " I find it hard to imagine that even God knows how to prove the | Sensitivity Conjecture in any simpler way than this." | | Why is there a tendency to invoke God in math? | ColinWright wrote: | It's a shortcut, they're not literally invoking "God". It's an | encoding of: | | _We don 't know what the optimum is, but we can imagine the | complete set of possible things, and from those there will be | one that's best. So that's the optimum, and we want to refer to | it. We don't know what it is, but we assume it exists, so let's | just call it 'God's solution'_ | blt wrote: | > _we can imagine the complete set of possible things, and | from those there will be one that 's best._ | | Not necessarily, unless we make some more assumptions about | the set of proofs and/or the proof goodness function ;) | erdevs wrote: | Mathematics often deal in abstractions, and "God" may be used | as a linguistic abstraction for ideal or perfect knowledge. | It's a shorthand in writing casually about the most elegant | mathematical insights. Its use is also a tradition via Erdos | with "The Book", which Aaronson and many mathematicians pay | homage to. | adamnemecek wrote: | I understand what it means, but I still don't like it. | AlanYx wrote: | If it's any consolation, Erdos himself said in one famous | lecture that the "God" part is irrelevant: "You don't have | to believe in God, but you should believe in The Book." | michannne wrote: | Right. AFAIK there is no universal Math deity like there is | Caissa for chess that can serve as a representation of | "perfect math", God is the next best thing. | GuB-42 wrote: | In most religions, God is an omnipotent, omniscient, and | generally perfect being. | | Mathematicians simply borrowed that definition. For example, | Rubik's cube "God's number" is 20. Because, of course, God, as | an omniscient, omnipotent perfect being will solve the puzzle | in the minimum possible amount of moves. And that number is 20 | in the most complex case. | | Computer science have a similar, more formal concept with | oracles. An oracle is a machine that can quickly solve a | problem. How it does it is not the question, it can be | supernatural, but we simply assume that such a machine exists | in order to study some theoretical problems. | scythmic_waves wrote: | I think about this sometimes. I think it's related to my | interest in the philosophy of mathematics. From the SEP article | [1]: | | > Bernays observed that when a mathematician is at work she | "naively" treats the objects she is dealing with in a | platonistic way. Every working mathematician, he says, is a | platonist (Bernays 1935). | | I think that's why. There's a tendency to think of mathematical | objects platonically. And given that it would be very odd if | platonic, mathematical objects interacted causally with our | universe, well, it's a short hop, skip, and a jump over to that | meaning they're things a God made. And here I mean "God" in a | root-of-all-things sense, not a Judeo-Christian or similar | sense. | | Also, I don't think you deserve the downvotes you're getting. | There may be a tone of condescension, and there may not be. But | there's a totally charitable way of interpreting that question | -- you noting a trend that you perceive -- and that's how I | took it. | | [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/ | QuesnayJr wrote: | Because it sounds good rhetorically. It is similar to the | tendency to declare someone who's really good at X "the god of | X". | gchamonlive wrote: | I think that would be because God is nature (for those who | believe in God) and math is how humans describe nature. That | would be the same as saying that nature can't be expressed in | its own language any simpler than this. | unixbeard1337 wrote: | What aspect of nature does the sensitivity conjecture | describe? | gchamonlive wrote: | What do you suppose is the answer to this question, other | than the Conjecture itself? | | I was talking about nature as in "the universe we live in". | Answering that question is just describing the problem | itself. | sethc2 wrote: | I think it's because God is often seen as the infinite, or | uncreated, or all that can be known. The something that exists | apart from any material existence. | | Mathematical relationships and patterns have this quality. | | Really what I wonder is why can't we all just believe in god | again? | | Even if it was just to recognize the fact that there are things | that exist in an immaterial way. That there are things that are | good and true and beautiful whose goodness truth and beauty is | not quantifiable or reduced to some set of atoms. We might | disagree on what things are better physical manifestations of | the immaterial things, but we don't need to disagree on their | existence. | | Though I think it is because so many people have said "god is | like this" and then posit some religious thing that affirms | their often heinous actions, that people have chosen to say | yeah I don't believe in that. | | But it seems sad that we can't just talk about god in the sense | of there are things bigger than ourself, even if we don't know | them because they are unknowable. | | Even if we just acknowledged "God" as the first cause or the | existence of things not material (like 2+2=4 is true even if | there was no material thing to represent it), I feel like we | could go a long way to finding that us humans, usually have | more in common than we have not in common. That the things that | divide us are actually smaller than the thing that unites us. | | (I don't see why your question was downvoted by the way) | soledades wrote: | FWIW, most mathematicians surveyed are "Mathematical | Platonists," meaning they believe that mathematical objects | exist in a way outside the human mind/the physical universe. | | This mathematical "realm" is a very natural home for the | variety of God a mathematician is likely to imagine. | | Alternatively, if you like, God is one of the most powerful | metaphors we as humans have. | great_wubwub wrote: | FFS take a few seconds and read the article. | | "Aaronson and O'Donnell both called Huang's paper the "book" | proof of the sensitivity conjecture, referring to Paul Erdos' | notion of a celestial book in which God writes the perfect | proof of every theorem. " | | and read the article that sentence links to. | the_local_host wrote: | It's not a terrible question, and even if the reference to | God is via Erdos, there's still a reference. I think it's | evident in the sciences as well, e.g. "God does not play dice | with the universe." | yesenadam wrote: | > FFS take a few seconds and read the article. | | Please read the HN guidelines. | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | scythmic_waves wrote: | I think that's just another example of what OP is referring | to. Erdos, a mathematician, invoked God. | AnHonestComment wrote: | I don't get the question. | | Are we asking why some people in a largely Christian | society refer to God as a concept? | | That answer seems obvious. | | Are we asking why some people playfully refer to quotes | from famous people when giving praise? | | Again, that seems obvious. | | What, specifically, is being asked? | | OP hasn't shown that mathematicians refer to God any more | often than society at large. | diffeomorphism wrote: | A) There isn't. | | B) It is a figure of speech that somewhere there is a book of | "perfect" proofs/blueprint of the universe. Presumably whatever | concept you call "God" has access to this, just like "Death" | has a list of all living things etc.. | [deleted] | tevlon wrote: | For the interested. Here is an online lecture from the author of | the paper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJoe4qH6kLs | lukeholder wrote: | And here is the paper: | http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~hhuan30/papers/sensitivity_1.pd... | wenc wrote: | I remember this article from 2019. I remember the writing style | struck me then as being a little strange. | | My first thought was "who's the mathematician"? But the article | doesn't actually mention the author's name until a few paragraphs | down, electing instead to put the spotlight on Scott Aaronson and | other commentators. I felt then as I do now that it was a little | lacking in respect. | JadeNB wrote: | To be fair, it does link to the paper in literally the first | words, which is in some sense the most important thing. But | let's go ahead and record the name here since the article takes | its time: the solver is Hao Huang. | [deleted] | gorkish wrote: | Yes! How hard is it to have a headline that says "Mathematician | Hao Huang solves Sensititvity Conjecture"? It's nearly | impossible to distinguish news stories from the force-fed | advertorials as it is. Now journalists are electing to imitate | them?! "Texas Teacher Discovers Mortgage Loophole" indeed.... | kevinskii wrote: | I read it as more of an attempt to frame Hao Huang's | accomplishment in a way that a lay audience could better | appreciate it. I didn't get any sense that it was | disrespectful. | angry_octet wrote: | I agree, it's extremely distasteful. I feel the author has cut | their teeth writing clickbait headlines to make information | extraction harder, the way a supermarket puts the milk at the | far corner of the store. I want a link/cite to the original | paper in the first para. | uniqueid wrote: | It reminds me of that interview a few years back 'Ms Bacall, | what was it like working with a screen legend like Nicole | Kidman?' | lostlogin wrote: | For those like me who didn't get the reference: | | http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3640454.stm | jstanley wrote: | > I want a link/cite to the original paper in the first para. | | I'm guessing this might have changed since you wrote your | comment, but the very first sentence does contain a link to | the paper. | | The paper itself is longer than 2 pages (but not by a lot!) | but the "Proof of the main theorem" section is only 2 pages | long. | PartiallyTyped wrote: | > the way a supermarket puts the milk at the far corner of | the store | | I never noticed, but I can only recall a single instance from | a set of 10 or so where that isn't the case. | | Any links on related content to the topic? | jldugger wrote: | There's a econtalk or maybe a planet money that goes into | detail on this: the cold chain is super important in food | safety, especially for stuff like milk. You want to be able | to move from refrigerated milk truck to grocery store food | fridge rapidly, so you put the milk near the loading dock. | And of course, you keep the loading dock as far away from | customers as possible so they're not inconvenienced. | | Moving the cold chain closer to checkout involves | additional expenses, so it works more for higher margin | products, and ones a bit more forgiving if there's a thaw, | like Coke, Monster energy drinks, and canned coffee from | Starbucks. | | So the question becomes: would you pay 50 cents more for | milk from a fridge at checkout, when you can get the same | thing at the back? | | EDIT: it was the host of econtalk, appearing on NPR Planet | money:https://www.npr.org/2014/08/01/337034378/everyone- | goes-to-th... | enjoyyourlife wrote: | The name of the mathematician is Hao Huang | xiaodai wrote: | Huang Hao. Chinese family nameXing first | pundesigner wrote: | Had a similar experience with another (also Quanta?) article | last year about some optical physics breakthrough made at my | not-very-well-known alma mater, but the article was written as | if the work was all done at MIT, which one of the collaborators | was affiliated with. You had to scroll to the second page to | see the name of the institution that the PI was actually at. | Kaytaro wrote: | Ironically your comment is guilty as well. | johntb86 wrote: | Perhaps it's just that the article isn't written in inverted | pyramid style? In non-newspaper writing (e.g. a novella) having | the main character be introduced in the 8th paragraph wouldn't | be that odd. | scythmic_waves wrote: | From Scott Aaronson's blog (linked in the article): | | > Another Update: In the comments section, my former student | Shalev Ben-David points out a simplification [1] of Huang's | argument, which no longer uses Cauchy's interlacing theorem. I | thought there was no way this proof could possibly be made any | simpler, and I was wrong! | | [1] https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4229#comment-1813084 | knuthsat wrote: | Knuth reduced it to half a page in the comments | scythmic_waves wrote: | HA! I just remembered that that proof was posted to /r/math a | while back: | | https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/cl20l6/knuth_has_writ. | .. | anchpop wrote: | Kind of makes this seem funny in retrospect: | | > Aaronson and O'Donnell both called Huang's paper the "book" | proof of the sensitivity conjecture, referring to Paul Erdos' | notion of a celestial book in which God writes the perfect | proof of every theorem. "I find it hard to imagine that even | God knows how to prove the Sensitivity Conjecture in any | simpler way than this," Aaronson wrote. | alberto_ol wrote: | A few comments below a guy called Don Knuth claims to have | shortened the proof to one page | https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4229#comment-1815290 | alasdair_ wrote: | > a guy called Don Knuth | | I found this unreasonably funny, given we're posting on a | tech-focused forum. It's like posting about "a proof by | some dude called Albert Einstein" on a physics forum. :) | BugsJustFindMe wrote: | And it's actually only half a page. The first bit is an | acknowledgement, and the second half is notes including | another few acknowledgements. | hgoury wrote: | I really enjoyed Ben-David (and Shalev-Schwartz)'s book | "Understanding machine learning". It's essentially about theory | though, not "learn all about machine learning in torchsorflow | in 10 days". | jcagalawan wrote: | Different Ben-David. You're talking about Shalev's dad Shai. | scythmic_waves wrote: | > I really enjoyed Ben-David (and Shalev-Schwartz)'s book | "Understanding machine learning". | | Good to hear! I only made it partway through (up through the | kernel trick I think) but I keep meaning to come back to | finish it. | | > torchsorflow | | Lol | sdenton4 wrote: | Nice! And it's a basically a pigeonhole principle argument. | master_yoda_1 wrote: | Frankly speaking I don't know what the "Sensitivity Conjecture" | is, and also wondering how many people on HN know about it? Or | people are upvoting without knowing what it is :) So HN ... | chmod775 wrote: | The article explains what it is in simple terms and it isn't | the first time this article is posted on HN. | terse_malvolio wrote: | If only there was a way to know... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-02-12 23:00 UTC)