[HN Gopher] Surprise computer science proof in combinatorics ___________________________________________________________________ Surprise computer science proof in combinatorics Author : theafh Score : 209 points Date : 2023-03-21 14:23 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org) | czbond wrote: | I'm a practical person. What's the point of spending "time" | (brain cycles) on such problems? Is it just a mathematician's | version of brain teaser? | | What useful development comes out of such? | kccqzy wrote: | Before cryptography, all of number theory was considered just | one brain teaser after another. Without those brain teasers we | wouldn't have secure private communications. | nostrebored wrote: | Well, you can now use this as a tool to show that if you can | reduce part of a problem to creating a progression free set you | can use that to show the complexity of a problem. | | The ways I've seen combinatorics (and graph theory!) interact | with software engineering is typically showing that a problem | is too expensive to solve at scale. | LolWolf wrote: | Eh, someone just suggested that a bound of this form might | break some cryptographic assumptions for finite fields of | (large) prime order. (This is not obvious to me, but it's a | point that I think is worth considering, and already would show | that such a result is useful.) | | It's very hard to know how these things end up being useful. | Even if a specific piece of knowledge isn't useful by itself, | it can lead to things that _are_ useful down the line. It 's | both very hard to know which ones will be, or which ones do | lead to actually useful results; for example, think of work on | propositional logic which ends up being the bedrock of | computation, work on elliptic curves (cryptography), work on | PDEs (physics), quantum physics (transistors), photonics | (communications), etc. | | Some fields have pretty "fast-to-application" times, but it's | not always clear which ones will _not_ yield useful results. | Plus, and here's the real, honest answer: all of this shit is | very fun! Why _not_ do it? | | I'm also a (somewhat) practical person, and that guides many of | the problems I try to solve, but sometimes there's just such a | tantalizing puzzle that it's hard not to resist! It's pretty | damn hard to "only" work on "useful" stuff and not be just an | ok academic/programmer/etc., you have to let yourself get nerd- | sniped into doing random things. With very high probability, | these little "side-quests" end up being very useful down the | line, for one reason or another. | semi-extrinsic wrote: | The flippant answer is https://abstrusegoose.com/504 | mcguire wrote: | Any mention of Lobachevsky requires this: | | https://youtu.be/gXlfXirQF3A | garbagecoder wrote: | Understanding mathematics before we understand what problems it | solves happens all the time. Maybe nothing will come of this, | but because we can't know that, it's worth researching. | | People didn't believe there was non-Euclidean geometry and not | long after the taboo was broken, we had General Relativity. | Einstein was a genius, but he did not invent the math for GR. | Mathematicians like Riemann, Minkowski, Hilbert, Ricci, Levi- | Civita and others created the mathematics for it first. | | Finding the area under a curve or the tangent line of an | arbitrary curve were considered two unconnected brain teasers | until Calculus was invented by Newton and Leibniz and applied | to gravity by Newton. | | The "Math First" approach has done more than enough to prove | its continued viability and without it you wouldn't have been | able to type that here. | rrobukef wrote: | A Hash Table's double hashing [1] creates an arithmetic | progression. Improving bounds of this theorem could lead to | faster, smaller hash-tables. This is the first wild speculation | I could come up with. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_hashing | dahart wrote: | Maybe the question is what useful developments _haven't_ come | from mathematical play originally, and can't trace their | lineage to abstract brain teasers? | TheRealPomax wrote: | The fallacy is thinking that this was the puzzle. This is just | one piece in a puzzle that's so big no one person can see the | whole thing, and that we're using as a blueprint for large | parts of modern civilization _while_ still figuring it out. We | don 't even know whether we've completed most of the puzzle, or | whether the puzzle is actually vastly larger than what we've | already put together. | | If you can't see why this is useful, then great: that's | literally what it means to be a layman. But that also means | that you don't know enough about the subject field for the real | answer (the one that explains what other maths this affects) to | satisfy your question because you won't know why _those_ things | would matter. | | So you're going to get the layman's answer: "because this shows | that any work already performed in the assumption of its truth | is now known to be valid", which is critically important | because a _lot_ of what maths is used for in real life is based | on assumptions about the properties of numbers. Now _others_ | can stop wasting their time trying to determine whether this | aspect of number theory can be relied upon, and under which | circumstances, and trying to find all expressions of it in both | software _and_ hardware in order to determine whether those | might have problems on a case-by-case basis. And at the same | time, this result allows others still to move forward with work | that is known to rely (in part!) on this property either being | true or false, for which it was previously uncertain whether it | would even be worth the effort because it was unknown whether | the results would turn out to be useless because no one knew | whether the basis it relied on was flawed. | | As for what useful development comes out of things like this: | | _points at the computer you 're using to comment on HN | threads, and every single application on it that you've ever | used_ | | That. | Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: | >In late 2021, Kelley and Meka were analyzing the chances that | a team of players in a certain cooperative game would be able | to win, a standard type of computer science problem. It | occurred to them that techniques from research on the size of | progression-free sets might be helpful. But they found it | easier to directly study those techniques than to apply them to | the cooperative game. "My best idea for how to make progress on | this problem [was] to actually improve the tool itself, not to | use it in a more clever way," Kelley said. | | I wish they went into more detail about how this problem was | relevant to the other problem. | jmblpati wrote: | I don't know what specific problem Kelley and Meka were | working on, but the connection between arithmetic progression | free sets and computer science (especially communication | complexity) is somewhat well established. See for example | this paper[1] which gives new constructions of "corner-free | sets" (which are closely related to 3 arithmetic progression- | free sets) by thinking about a specific communication | protocol. | | [1] https://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2021/14276/pdf/L | IPI... | phtrivier wrote: | We're mortals, the only relevantquestion is "is it a better use | of brain cycles than X". | | Considering that way vaster amounts of brain cycles are devoted | to making people watch one more TikTok video, then, I think | this kind of brain-scratching is more useful than much of what | most of us do. | retrac wrote: | Mathematics continually surprises us when seemingly disparate | areas suddenly become linked, sharing some sort of relationship | that was not appreciated until much later. | | Some think mathematics is something like a physical law, or | property of the universe. So figuring out such things may be | like fundamental physics research. Hard to quantify the value, | but there is value. Seemingly unrelated developments in | mathematics have had a habit of helping to solve problems in | physics in the past, at least. I don't think anyone really | expected the exciting new mathematics of statistics in the 18th | century, to one day be relevant to physics. But it would be. | chasd00 wrote: | > Some think mathematics is something like a physical law, or | property of the universe | | my kid asked me if math was invented or discovered. i said | "invented", i hope i'm right considering he views me as some | all knowing oracle of information. just a little bit of | pressure there. | psychoslave wrote: | You missed a great opportunity to answer a simple "yes". ;) | truckerbill wrote: | Given the fact the rules exist whether we know about it or | not, I'm team discovered | layer8 wrote: | Computers were invented, but you could also say that we | discovered how universal computation works. It's not like | there's some fundamentally different form of computation | that we could have invented instead. Even more so in math, | the _truths_ in math are discovered, not invented. | claytongulick wrote: | The mathematical realm is a purely human construct. | | There's no such thing as "one" in nature: there's not | "one" apple. An apple is a monstrously complex collection | of cells and dynamic chemical processes, it's not "one". | | The concept of numbers are a tool that humans use to | categorize, summarize and model the world around us. | | The "truths" we discover in math are only true in the | mathematical realm, which is an inexact model of the | physical realm. Useful, but undeniably a human construct. | | So yes, math is invented. | | Though we constantly discover new ways to use it in the | physical world. | mik1998 wrote: | > which is an inexact model of the physical realm | | Mathematics have nothing to do with the real world. | | The set of all true statements provable with a set of | axioms is determined only by the axioms. All the true | statements are already true whether we know they are or | not; in that sense math is like exploring the unknown | land that exists outside of the physical realm. It's | discovered. | layer8 wrote: | Just as one (no pun intended) example, the fact that | there are exactly five platonic solids in three- | dimensional space is not something that is invented. It | is discovered. And facts like that govern what is | possible in the physical world, for example what kind of | crystalline atomic structures can form. There is nothing | "invented" about that. | | The fact that the physical space we live in has three | dimensions also isn't invented. These numbers, three and | five here, are not a human invention. They correspond to | facts we discovered, and they represent truths that are | independent of human existence or inventions. | | Maths is exactly about that, discovering the fundamental | truths that, based on logic, we find couldn't have been | any other way. | claytongulick wrote: | It's a bit of a difficult concept to wrap our head around | because we've been taught to associate "number symbols" | and names with "things" since we were toddlers, but they | absolutely aren't the same thing. | | There's no such thing as "three", other than a | categorization that we, as humans, apply to model the | physical phenomenon. | | We've developed language and symbols over time to more | precisely model the things we observe, but it's important | to remember that our symbols are different from the | things they are invented to represent. | | It's really hard to separate this abstract concept from | our observed reality when they are so tightly coupled - | the idea of "three dimensional space" is a model we've | constructed to categorize and represent, in a convenient | way, observed phenomenon that is too difficult to talk | about in other terms. | | We didn't "discover" that there are three dimensions, for | example. We developed language and a mental framework for | categorizing space in such a way that we could more | easily reason about it and communicate our reasoning | effectively with others. | | We didn't "discover" Ohm's law. We created a set of | units, names and concepts that would allow us to model | the relationship in an analytic way, between other | concepts such as current, voltage and resistance. Ohm's | law isn't not a fundamental law of nature. Above all | else, it's a series of struggles with language to | describe things we observe. "Ohm" as a unit of | resistance, "Voltage", "Amperage" - all of this was | invented in order to be able to reason about things we | were seeing, and it seems to be a good mental model and | tool for getting things done, but it is very different | than the actual reality. | | We didn't "discover" the number three - we created the | concept of numbers and refined their meaning over time. | For a very long time, in most civilizations there wasn't | a concept of "zero" in number symbols. We needed a way to | communicate that concept though, so invented a symbol to | represent it. | | Number systems and the symbols that represent them have | varied wildly throughout human history, and there appears | to be a neurological attachment in the human brain that | associates quantity with physicality (specifically | fingers) [1] that makes grokking this concept especially | difficult. When we become sophisticated enough that using | our fingers wasn't sufficient to reason and communicate, | we started using bone tally marks as a quantity | representation - but all of these things, fingers, tally | marks, glyphs - are just symbols that humans have created | over time to imperfectly model physical phenomena. | | It's no different than any other sort of naming. We look | at differences between birds, and attach a symbol of | "hawk" to one, and "eagle" to another. There's no such | thing as "hawk" or "eagle" in nature, these are human | invented symbols that help us categorize and communicate | in a short-hand way, differences between species we | observe. Numbers are the same, but we've also invented a | bunch of rules for manipulating those symbols to | communicate more advanced concepts: addition, | subtraction, etc... | | Now it's true, of course, that we discover new things all | the time. Frequently we need to invent new ways of | describing it. We discovered, by observing the stars, | that planets follow an elliptical orbit. We couldn't | describe that well using the tools we had, so invented | Calculus. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_nume | ral_sys... | layer8 wrote: | Math fundamentally isn't about the "names", it's about | the "things". We are doing it because we want to know | about the "things". The "names" are only incidental. | Saying that math is invented and not discovered gives the | impression that it is building fantasy castles in the | sky, whereas it really is about gaining knowledge about | absolute and objective truths, truths that exist | independent from any human inventiveness or creativity, | or from the choice of "names". The "names" are merely a | vehicle, a tool for that purpose. | | To take an example from computer science, we discovered | that comparison sorting algorithms have a time complexity | of O(n log n). This discovery is independent from the | notation we use to express it, and independent from the | programming languages we use and independent of the | choice of sorting algorithm. It is a fundamental fact of | the matter, and there is nothing invented about it. Any | alien intelligence would end up with exactly the same | insight about sorting. | | Or to give a more hands-on example: If you have two, | three, or four balls of the same size, you can arrange | them such that each ball touches all of the other balls | (a tetrahedron shape in the case of four balls). But you | can't do that with five or more balls. Convincing | yourself that that's true is an essential example of | doing math. And it is true regardless of what "names" you | use. You can also use apples and oranges if they are | approximately spherical and of the same size (or, | alternatively, "look the same from all angles"). | | For these reasons, when chasd00 tells their kid that math | is invented, not discovered, they are misrepresenting | what math is really about. The above example with balls | could be one way to illustrate to a kid how math isn't | invented. (I'm sure there are much better examples, this | is just from the top of my head.) | mypalmike wrote: | > The fact that the physical space we live in has three | dimensions also isn't invented | | The concept of "three orthogonal dimensions" is a pretty | good model of the physical reality that is space. | sosein wrote: | While counting apples might be a useful example for | teaching children, they're hardly the only thing there is | to count. The putative abstraction isn't even in the | number "one", the abstraction you're complaining about is | in the chosen category of "apple". In other words, the | fact that something can be comprised of many things does | not change how many of that thing there are, nor does it | reveal some deep unnaturalness of numbers. It at best | casts doubt on our delimitation of objects. | nomemory wrote: | That is a good question for a kid. | | Ask him back, if it's discovered, where was it "stored" all | this time. | | If it's invented, does it mean that other potential | sentient species will have a different math than ours ? | anonymousDan wrote: | That's a really insightful question for a kid to ask! Not | sure I agree with your answer though, for me that's the | kind if thing it would be hard to prove either way | (ironically). | JohnMakin wrote: | not to nitpick, but there's a ton of stuff in mathematics | that is just defined out of convenience or convention, it's | not natural law. Rather, a better definition would be that | mathematics is a description of reality, rather than law | itself. | msm_ wrote: | Isn't it the same? Laws of physics describe how the | physical world works, similarly to "laws of math" that | describe how the mathematical world works. In both cases we | tend to define our laws in a way that's easy for humans to | use and understand. | jjtheblunt wrote: | The gist of the insight of exercise is that one is conditioned, | even if the exercise itself seemed pointless, for the | unpredictable in later situations. | chriswarbo wrote: | > What's the point of spending "time" (brain cycles) on such | problems? | | What's the point of anything? | | > Is it just a mathematician's version of brain teaser? | | _All_ of mathematics can be characterised as "brain teasers". | Make of that what you will. | | > What useful development comes out of such? | | I'm not qualified for this particular example. However, it | seems quite number-theoretic, and number-theory has given us | such "practical" things as asymmetric encryption and universal | computation (Turing's famous paper from 1936 was titled "On | Computable Numbers", after all). | johnfn wrote: | > What's the point of anything? | | Not that I disagree with you, but some things have an impact | on people's quality of life: nutrition, healthcare, and | psychological well-being. | YetAnotherNick wrote: | Psychological well being is definitely improved if people | could work on something they like and get praised/rewarded | for it. And I believe that is way people could get | interested in something. Best engineers I know of, had got | into their field because they are driven by solving problem | just for the sake of it. | jaqalopes wrote: | It's a big world, not everyone needs to be a | farmer/doctor/psychologist so some people who have other | skills do other things. Sometimes those other things help. | A lot of time they don't. For better or worse we live in a | society. | mcguire wrote: | So? What is the point of living? | | :-) | n4r9 wrote: | I'd say there's a strong case that this has a positive | impact on the psychological well-being of anyone who's | interested in number theory. | | Perhaps not that many people in the world understand the | formulation of the problem, but then not many people "get" | abstract art, either. | an_d_rew wrote: | > ... but some things have an impact on people's quality of | life: nutrition, healthcare, and psychological well-being. | | I would perhaps classify that as "immediate" impact, not | "lack of impact". | | Number theory has driven computer science, calculus, | statistics, and so on. | | CS, calculus, stats... they all drive (for example) | "nutrition". For example, how do you know what a "vitamin" | is? How do you measure it? How do you quantify it's effects | on the body (and mind)? A whackload of analysis DEPENDS on | number theory for us to understand almost everything about | the natural world! | eddsh1994 wrote: | Farming provides food. Predicting the probability of water | spontaneously combusting, while interesting, provides much | less food. | TheRealPomax wrote: | You know what does though? Irrigation. You know what allows | you to optimally irrigate so you don't waste money that you | could be spending either on growing more crops or your | family? Maths. | | Only a fool pretends the ground floor of a house is | worthless because they live on the second floor. | eddsh1994 wrote: | I'm not saying Math is useless, I'm saying there must be | tiers for topics in how useful they are such that someone | can say "Hey, that's pointless!" and one can't follow | with "Therefore all things are pointless". Or, that allow | me to rank niche topics in their usefulness. | | Irrigation is very important. Now, is Irrigation Maths | more important to us as a species than Terrence Taos work | on spontaneously combusting water? Probably! Would it be | more useful to have PhDs be funded in optimizing food | routes between countries after climate change over game | theory applications for blackjack? Probably! | TheRealPomax wrote: | Unfortunately, no. Maths is so vast that what might seem | a trivial and silly brain teaser can turn out to unlock a | _massive_ problem in a seemingly completely unrelated | subfield of mathematics, and we won 't know until someone | discovers that link. | | What someone might call "a silly little brain teaser" | today could actually result in a breakthrough paper weeks | (or centuries) from now in a different subfield because | someone far smarter than us realized that part of the | problem they were working was actually analogous to a | number theory related problem that was simplified, even a | tiny bit, by this solution. (Hell, Nash built his entire | career on spotting those kind of links and then telling | other mathematicians to focus on working out the | individual pieces) | | Maths plays out over "we don't even know how long or | short" time scales. What's the use? We don't know, it's | probably completely useless. Until someone suddenly | realizes that it's not. | msm_ wrote: | >Now, is Irrigation Maths more important to us as a | species than Terrence Taos work on spontaneously | combusting water? Probably! Would it be more useful to | have PhDs be funded in optimizing food routes between | countries after climate change over game theory | applications for blackjack? Probably! | | I imagine you would be equally annoyed at Euler in 1736 | when he was wasting his time with bridge brain teasers | (and invented graph theory in the process) instead of | solving bubonic plague or optimizing irrigation. Science | just doesn't (in general) work the way you propose. | eddsh1994 wrote: | And the majority of science sit in empty libraries with | maybe a single citation by a postdoc trying to write | enough papers to get the next postdoc... | Invictus0 wrote: | OP didn't say all math was useless, just this math, which | yes is most likely completely useless. | gspencley wrote: | The interesting thing about the question is that there | really aren't any right or wrong answers. | | People pointing out that maths is full of advancements | that had no immediately identifiable use at the time, but | that came to be useful later, is correct. Yet it doesn't | even begin to answer the OP's question. | | I doubt very much that many people choose to pour their | lives into endeavours that they don't particularly enjoy | just because some hypothetical person at some | hypothetical future point in time might hypothetically | find a hypothetical use (hypothetically ;P). | | The answer is that "value" presupposes the question | "valuable to who and why?" | | Newton invented Calculus because he had an immediate use | for it. Other mathematicians pour themselves into solving | problems because they enjoy it and find a lot of reward | in the prospect of solving a previous unsolved problem. | Both are "valuable", just to different people for | different reasons. | Invictus0 wrote: | Yeah it's fine for mathematicians to amuse themselves, | the problem is when they demand salaries to do that and | taxpayers like OP rightfully ask "whats in it for me?" | And when the answer is "IDK but maybe in a century we | might have a problem this math is useful in solving" then | it's not surprising that no one wants to fund pure math | research. It's not the 20th century anymore when math | research was going to meaningfully improve someone's life | through the invention of things like electrical devices. | burnished wrote: | Thats a pretty myopic view of history there champ. | | The pragmatic, practical perspective here is that funding | the egg heads has had incredible outcomes (and its so | cheap too), so dont let the simpletons shake the golden | goose down just because they don't understand anything | they cant fuck, fight, or eat. | Ar-Curunir wrote: | In which world do you think mathematicians are raking in | taxpayer money? Mathematics requires very little funding: | a blackboard, some chalk, a pen and paper, a desk, some | coffee. That's it. | gspencley wrote: | Yeah, if you force other people to pay for something then | you had better offer them an attractive value | proposition. Though public funding of mathematics and | other sciences is not what I thought we were discussing | :) | czbond wrote: | You described my thinking very well, and much better than | I. Thank you | TheRealPomax wrote: | Until it's not, because someone suddenly realizes that a | seemingly completely unrelated problem in a completely | different subfield that's holding up a major proof is | actually analogous to a problem where this result removes | a bunch of roadblocks. | | That's the problem with math from a "so what is this good | for?" perspective: we don't know yet, but we sure have a | litany of instances where seemingly useless proofs had a | profound impact anywhere from weeks to centuries later. | JohnMakin wrote: | They were trying to solve a real world problem using this | kind of math, and then decided it'd be easier to improve | upon the math itself than to continue to pound at the | problem - so by definition, I'd say you're absolutely | wrong here, or they never would have started this proof | in the first place. | mcguire wrote: | What is the point of providing food? Surviving? Existing? | Is that the highest achievement? Is remaining breathing for | a few more seconds the greatest goal? | pixl97 wrote: | >Predicting the probability of water spontaneously | combusting, while interesting, provides much less food. | | Unless you can make a prediction that water will combust in | low energy conditions, in which you can use this combusting | water to generate excess power. Then use that power to | compress nitrogen into ammonia, and then use that product | as fertilizer. | | The British show Connections went over how completely | different things sometimes 'connect' and bring fruitful new | ideas. | | The problem space of reality has emergent behaviors that | are not (easily?) predictable. Sometimes you have to | iterate large portions of it. | renewiltord wrote: | One can see it as peeking behind the veil to view the | underlying structure of the universe we live in. It permits | certain things and does not permit others. | Ar-Curunir wrote: | Most of the other comments focus on how and why theory research | often leads to "practically useful" outcomes down the line, so | I'll instead say that not all research has to be practical. | Sometimes people do things just because they're interesting and | fun. | | Why do people play board games, or video games, or sports? Why | do people read fiction? Why do people have hobbies which | strictly distract from productive work time? The answer to any | of these questions is the same as the answer for "Why do people | do theoretical research?": it's fun. | sebzim4500 wrote: | It's normally extremely hard to guess the applications of this | kind of research. Having said that, almost all modern | cryptography relies on maths that was not obviously applicable | at the time. | ChuckMcM wrote: | Understanding the fundamental nature of numbers and sets will | allow a person to avoid working on solutions to their "real | world" problems which would be precluded by that nature. | | Take cryptography for instance. Why large prime numbers? Why | elliptic curves? If you have proven the fundamental mathematics | behind factoring large primes, then you have a basis for | thinking that a cryptographic system based on large primes will | be reasonably secure. | | Many of the developments you use everyday are based on the | understanding of just such "brain teasers" :-). | [deleted] | ramesh31 wrote: | >What useful development comes out of such? | | Mathematicians aren't concerned with that at all. If something | they do ends up being useful to science and engineering, then | wonderful. But it's not the point. | davnicwil wrote: | I've spent a lot of time and brain cycles over the last decade | writing software, entire products actually, that now sit as | motionless bits on a disk somewhere, unused and useless. | | In the process of creating them I had a lot of fun, honed my | existing skills and picked up new ones, broke out of various | boxes I had been stuffed into in terms of how to architect | systems, and just generally worked out my creative muscles. | | I've also written a lot of software that is useful and used, | and in a practical sense makes (lots of) money. | | It's meaningless to break out the time and cycles spent on one | Vs the other. The necessary skills required were enabled by one | another. Moreover it would have been to a large extent | impossible to determine _a priori_ which would be which. | | Am I an impractical person because I've spent time and cycles | on the former? | pixl97 wrote: | Yep, 'fun training' is one of those things you never know if | it could pay off, but because you know the information now | there is a much higher chance it is going to pay off for you. | alecst wrote: | I have a friend working on lidar for a military contractor. He | uses these exact theorems to design beam pulses for measuring | distances of asteroids and stuff. The idea is to construct | beams so that you can tell by the autocorrelation function the | exact distance away an object is. It turns out that these weird | kinds of integer sequences can help you design beams that give | the autocorrelation function this property. | czbond wrote: | This sounds really interesting, thanks for sharing. | pnut wrote: | Lazy loading solutions doesn't work when there's no library of | solutions to pull from. | | Humanity already tried thinking it was better than the selfless | pursuit of knowledge, that path leads nowhere good. | aaomidi wrote: | This has significant implications for randomness and entropy. | | I can already see it being useful for verifying entropy and for | verifying anonymization of statistical data. | ubj wrote: | Neural networks were first prototyped in the 1950's [1]. How | practical was it to study them back then? | | Aleksandr Lyapunov's theory of stability for dynamical systems, | which forms the bedrock for much of control theory, was first | proposed in 1892 and went unnoticed until the 1930's [2]. How | practical was it for Lyapunov to study that topic? | | It's virtually impossible to predict which mathematical tools | will be "practical" or "useful" in the future. The point is | that if someone needs the tool down the road, they'll have | access to the solution due to the efforts of these | mathematicians. | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network#History | | [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyapunov_stability#History | ilamont wrote: | Many other fields too. | | Mendel's discoveries weren't appreciated until after he died. | When Narinder Singh Kapany invented fiber optic cable in the | 50s he had no idea it would lead to revolutions in computer | networking, gastroenterology, and other fields. | riku_iki wrote: | there is a huge chance this advancements could be invented | maybe in more efficient form when need and time come. | deredede wrote: | Proofs (both results and techniques) are a mathematician's | ammo. It is not good strategy to wait for a war to start | before building ammo. | riku_iki wrote: | And then you open ammo storage when you need it and see | it is polluted by 99.9% of irrelevant garbage. | | Math is like code: technical debt makes moving forward | much harder. | phendrenad2 wrote: | > It's virtually impossible to predict which mathematical | tools will be "practical" or "useful" in the future | | On a long enough timeline, you're right! But if we limit | ourselves to, say, the next 5,000 years, it gets a lot easier | to accomplish. ;) | asynchrony wrote: | How does limiting the timeline to 5,000 years enhance our | ability to predict the future? | phendrenad2 wrote: | The more you limit your timeline, the easier is is to | predict the future. That's why we only have 10-day | weather forecasts. | ubj wrote: | Good point, maybe a better way of phrasing it would have | been "It's virtually impossible to predict which tools will | _not_ be useful" :) | | Fast Fourier transforms, complex numbers, complexity | classes, etc. are clearly useful. It's much harder to | rigorously claim that a result will _never_ be practical or | useful. | | Just to be clear, I think it's fair to say that a result | isn't _immediately_ useful. But who can say whether or not | it will have a more practical application down the road? | Only time will tell. | pciexpgpu wrote: | And the entire works of Church and Turing... | xen2xen1 wrote: | Or the guy who just wanted to extend the works of | Aristotle, and created binary... | llamaz wrote: | Leibniz did that from memory, although the stoics deserve | the credit for propositional logic (which can be reduced | to a collection of truth tables). and contrary to popular | belief Boole actually extended Aristotle's syllogisms | (reduced the conventional syllogisms to computation using | matrices of 1s and 0s) rather than create a today's | binary logic. | the88doctor wrote: | Some number theory results about sequences and progressions can | be applied to create more efficient algorithms to approximate | the solutions to multi-dimensional integrals that come up in | physics (especially solid state physics on lattices). | | Solid state physics problems of that sort are used in the | process of engineering new materials (e.g. a more efficient | dielectric for capacitors, a magnetic material that can store | magnetic memory data at higher temperatures without | destablizing, a higher temperature superconductor, etc). Idk if | this particular result has such an application, but I wouldn't | be surprised if it did. | | In addition to solid state physics, "special functions" show up | in many areas of applied math and physics, including the | design, calibration, and data analysis of/from MRI machines and | antennas. Many special functions including the hypergeometric | functions can be approximated more efficiently using fancy | number theory algorithms. | | There is also a broad category of physics and chemistry | problems that are best solved by Monte Carlo simulations, and | sometimes Monte Carlo approximations can be made using many | fewer iterations by choosing a set of points within the sample | space that satisfy number theoretic constraints. | | Also, physics models often inspire machine learning models so | it's not impossible that some niche ML algorithm could | eventually benefit from a faster algorithm that uses this | result or a derivative of it. | | None of these directly answer your question about a definitive | application for this particular number theory result, but I | hope it gives you an idea of what it could potentially be used | for. The closest analogy I know if is that certain multi- | dimensional Monte Carlo integral approximations can be done | orders of magnitude more quickly if you choose lattice points | whose coordinates satisfy some similar-ish constraints to the | ones described for this problem. | screye wrote: | All fundamental research is odd like that. Someone has to make | significant progress on a 'useless' topic before some semblance | of usefulness starts becoming visible. | burnished wrote: | There is no direct practical reason. Other people are giving | you the long term outlook view, why it is valuable in | aggregate, but if you were aiming for immediately practical | results neither math nor CS would fit the bill. | | I can't speak for others but for me math is kind of like a | brain teaser on crack. It is immensely satisfying to think | about and I would imagine most mathematicians get a similar | kick out of it. Not a mathematician myself mind you. | ano88888 wrote: | lets just hope that politicions who controls the flow of | resource are not as shortsighted as you or we are doomed. The | computer and all the software won't be exist without this | boring and pointless mathemathics from a long time before | haha69 wrote: | Very similar answer to this - https://www.themarysue.com/tyson- | space-exploration/ | alfalfasprout wrote: | The point is to advance knowledge of mathematics. Knowledge is | a practical pursuit in and of itself. | bena wrote: | Sometimes, discovering these proofs makes the math easier. If | we know X is the case for all Ys, and X is easier to compute, | you can use X where you would use Y before. Of if you know X is | true for all Ys, you can skip the part where you have to verify | that your Y has X property. Because we now know it must have | it. | | And it's math all the way down in computers. So anything that | makes math easier or quicker has the potential to affect | anything a computer can process. | fooker wrote: | A practical person doesn't usually discover or invent something | which turns out to be practical in the long run. | heikkilevanto wrote: | For a long time certain mathematicians took great pride in | studying the most useless part of their field, prime numbers. | Without their studies we would not have modern cryptographic | techniques (RSA, SSL, HTTPS). And no bitcoin either. | giantg2 wrote: | Ok, but what's the use of this data set? Like how does this | improve something in the world? | | Edit: why disagree... with me asking questions? | dang wrote: | " _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of other | people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something._" | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | giantg2 wrote: | I'm not posting a shallow dismissal. I'm legitimately asking | what this applies to since I didn't see anything in the | article about potential application. It's fine if there | aren't any potential applications too, just like the | videos/articles about Rubik's Cubes solving - the | people/solutions are impressive even if it doesn't have any | practical applications. | BeetleB wrote: | > Ok, but what's the use of this data set? | | Same use as the rest of mathematics: Entertainment for those | interested in the topic. | burnished wrote: | You must be confused, the title specifies computer science and | mathematicians - the default assumption here should be that if | it is useful no one is going to realize for some decades. | mabbo wrote: | I feel like Quanta just has Terry Tao on speed dial at this | point, and that he loves to answer the call. They always ask him | about this stuff for their math articles and he always gives | great answers. | | > That Kelley and Meka managed to spot the strength of once- | overlooked ideas shows the often fitful nature of mathematical | progress -- a quality that to Tao is more of a blessing than a | curse. "It's not always the case that math just gets harder and | harder and harder," he said. "Thank God." | uptownfunk wrote: | Hey nothing wrong with that! Huge fan of Terry Tao. Something | magical about how their brains work. | mabbo wrote: | It definitely wasn't a complaint, haha. | paulpauper wrote: | This is why America's obsession with trying to boost math scores | is possibly a waste of time and money. No amount of math literacy | will ever approach anything like this. Those who are gifted and | motivated enough will learn the material anyway and there are | enough professors who can teach it. | | People who are professionals are so way far above and beyond | anything done by non-professionals. It's not like that with | reading or writing, in which knowing how to read means you can in | theory appreciate almost any book. | | I think more emphasis should be on learning the basics, which | enough kids find hard enough to do. No reason to try to make high | schoolers learn algebra 1 & 2. | tmhn2 wrote: | The authors of the paper are academics in university CS | departments with heavy math backgrounds (one with a B.S. in | mathematics, another was a visiting professor at MIT dept of | mathematics). I don't understand what you mean or how it | relates to the article or surrounding circumstances. | permo-w wrote: | >there's no point planting seeds because plants will grow | anyway | | did you have a bad maths teacher at some point? | mherdeg wrote: | I had a bit of trouble grappling with this. | | What is the largest AP-3-free set for, say, the integers from 1 | to 100? What is the largest N where we've computed it explicitly | / how expensive is that to do? | LegionMammal978 wrote: | According to the OEIS [0], the set has size 27; you can find | its terms in the Dybizbanski reference [1]. Presumably, it's | been computed up to N = 211, where the B-file ends. | | [0] https://oeis.org/A003002 | | [1] https://doi.org/10.37236/2061 | unsupp0rted wrote: | > Though both Bloom and Sisask had other pressing matters to | attend to at the time they received the email -- Bloom had just | adopted a puppy, while Sisask was in the middle of moving -- they | quickly set to work verifying the new paper. | thirdmunky wrote: | Source paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.05537 | n4r9 wrote: | Plus much shorter write-up from Bloom and Sisask: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07211 | [deleted] | red_trumpet wrote: | I think you mean this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07211 | n4r9 wrote: | Yes, thank you! | rml wrote: | automatic conversion to web page available at | https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/2302.07211 | | (more info about the conversions at | https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org) | eternalban wrote: | TIL. Thank you for this. | | https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/ | lixtra wrote: | The first half page finally made me understand the problem. I | didn't get it from the article. | n4r9 wrote: | The statement in the article: | | > a limit on the size of a set of integers in which no three | of them are evenly spaced | | This misses a key detail. You can trivially find arbitrarily | large such sets e.g. take the first however many powers of 2: | 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 ... | | The missing constraint is that the set of integers must be a | subset of { 1, 2, ... , N }. | monktastic1 wrote: | I thought it was pretty clear from this: | | > Erdos and Turan wanted to know how many numbers smaller | than some ceiling N can be put into a set without creating | any three-term arithmetic progressions. | charlieyu1 wrote: | [flagged] | Ar-Curunir wrote: | What nonsense. Would you have even heard of this paper if not | for Quanta? | | Also, no mathematician or computer scientist I know has | anything negative to say about Quanta. | pmezard wrote: | I do not really understand the unconditional love for | Quanta. Sure it is better it exists than not but I find the | articles vague and mostly about people/institution name | dropping. "Someone someone from the prestigious MIT said | <this is a tremendous result!>". Cool I guess? | | Take this one: | | - No clear explanation of the problem to solve. Could have | given an example or something to hammer out what is an | arithmetic progression of 3 numbers. - No detail about the | actual form of the previous bound and the new one. - Not | much detail about the actual technique. I get that it | become very technical very quickly. But that is the actual | job of a science/math journalist to distill this. "They | used a well know technique of increasing density, etc.". If | it is well know, why not try to describe how it works. | | I wonder what someone like 3blue1brown would make of this. | impendia wrote: | > I wonder what someone like 3blue1brown would make of | this. | | Although I am not Grant Sanderson (3blue1brown creator), | I would wager very good money that he would strongly | approve. | | I am a research mathematician, I do read Quanta, and I've | been interviewed for them also. Overall my impression is | that they do a good job of making at least _something_ of | contemporary research mathematics accessible to the | general public. Most people have _very_ little concept of | what we do. | | It is a notoriously hard task, it is a vitally important | one, and it is one that too few people are attempting. | Quanta does the best job of it of any publication I know, | and for that I am very grateful. | compacct27 wrote: | True, but we wouldn't be discussing this without the | journalism in the first place | bennysonething wrote: | Please stop with the click bait headlines :( | perihelions wrote: | "Theorem shows how 3-term arithmetic progressions inevitably | arise in large sets" | | "Improved upper bound on density of integer sets containing no | subset a,a+b,a+2b" | tines wrote: | Did you read the article? The headline is pretty accurate, if | not pretty abstract. | colechristensen wrote: | It's click bait because it contains zero information about | what was actually done. | permo-w wrote: | it may be clickbait but it does provide information about | the crossing over of fields, which is interesting, | particularly when those fields are computer science and | maths | [deleted] | yborg wrote: | It's only bait if you bite on it, as you did. I did as | well, because I could see it was a Quanta link, and found | it quite interesting. Would I have clicked on it if the | title was "The Kelley--Meka bounds for sets free of three- | term arithmetic progressions?" Probably not. So in this | case, I consider myself fortunately baited. | phendrenad2 wrote: | So wait, you're saying that people should just accept | that headlines are uselessly hyperbolic, and either (A) | click every one of them to see if they're worth your time | or (B) never click any, to avoid "biting" and getting | "baited"? | | Eminently practical approach, but we can hope for a | better world where this isn't necessary... | yborg wrote: | It seems that there is actually (C) somewhere in there, | which would be "apply some judgement" i.e. look at the | source, and maybe (D) let someone else on HN bite on it | and get a synopsis there. | permo-w wrote: | i feel like you've lost sight of what "bait" is | dang wrote: | Ok, we've unstunned the mathematicians and added combinatorics | to the title above. | TylerE wrote: | Any headline containing the word "bombshell", "destroys", | "shocking" or things of that ilk are ALWAYS poorly written | fluff, because editors are generally competent. | | If there was an actual bombshell that would be the headline! | | It wouldn't be "Surprise Computer Science Proof Stuns | Mathematicians" it would be "Scientist solves Fermat's Last | Theorem" or something | permo-w wrote: | this is actually untrue. yes it's a decent signal of | bollocks, but this is a perfectly interesting and well- | written article | | those headlines and similar clickbait techniques are | annoying, but they're seen as a necessary evil by plenty of | "good quality" content creators and editors | | this is especially evident on youtube, where it appears as if | you literally cannot gain mass success without surprising | facial expressions in your video thumbnails | | if you think I'm exaggerating, open Youtube in a private tab | and see how many of the recommended videos _don't_ have | someone pulling an unusual facial expression in them | | plenty of these videos are of perfectly good quality, but in | order to succeed they have to follow a shadowy pattern | Ar-Curunir wrote: | I mean, this is a pretty big result in combinatorics, solving | a 70-yr old problem. | TylerE wrote: | Then the head line should have said "combinatorics" instead | of the off-brand Buzzfeed "stuns mathematicians". | zamadatix wrote: | I always thought a set of satirical articles like "Mayor | Slams Opponents on Support of Budget Cuts" which then go into | said mayor being in custody for assault charges or other | similarly overly literal interpretations of the original | meaning would be good fun. Well, it probably exists I just | haven't seen them yet :). | | It's great headlines aren't using the overly technical | description (that honestly doesn't help much either) but it | is a bit depressing the reason for doing so is "nobody clicks | those" not "it could be made clearer to the average person" | so we end up with things that are so vague you have no clue | what it could actually be about yet is written to ensure it | should be interesting enough for you to click. After that | they don't really care what you get out of it, you've loaded | another article and ads instead of leaving. This article | actually bucks the trends a bit by being decent enough with | what content is in the body at least. | tines wrote: | I mean, not every big result is FLT. This headline actually | tells me, a non-mathematician, much more than something more | accurate like "Strong Bounds for 3-Progressions". I have no | context for interpreting that phrase at all, but I can | appreciate the one chosen (if it's true, which it is). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-21 23:01 UTC)