[HN Gopher] Mathematicians have found a new upper limit to the R...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Mathematicians have found a new upper limit to the Ramsey number
        
       Author : georgehill
       Score  : 202 points
       Date   : 2023-12-10 08:46 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org)
        
       | georgehill wrote:
       | I submitted this link 1 day ago, but I am not sure why it's on
       | the front page now, as it says I posted it just 1 hour ago
       | 
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=georgehill
        
         | bmacho wrote:
         | Moderators often resubmit submissions with fake time. (I pretty
         | much hate this. I don't like people lying things about me, like
         | I was using HN at a time I wasn't. Be aware of this.)
        
           | lloydatkinson wrote:
           | Why?
        
             | enriquto wrote:
             | It's an invasion of privacy. Imagine that a post appears
             | under your name with a date/time where you are supposed to
             | be working. If you are paid by somebody else, this may get
             | you into trouble, or even fired.
        
               | davnicwil wrote:
               | In fairness in such an extreme situation it seems likely
               | there would be a conversation where you'd have the
               | opportunity to explain.
               | 
               | If there weren't, well, probably you're better off?
        
               | avgcorrection wrote:
               | > If there weren't, well, probably you're better off?
               | 
               | That's for the person to do something with or not. :) Not
               | something that moderators should intervene in indirectly.
        
               | chongli wrote:
               | How do you explain if you're not aware of the policy?
        
               | carbotaniuman wrote:
               | There is no privacy invasion here (that isn't even the
               | right argument). If you think that HN misrepresents the
               | data then sure that's a valid concern, but it's not a
               | privacy invasion. But really, the HN date is when it got
               | exposed initially.
        
               | sfink wrote:
               | It does suggest that an "(updated)" marker would not go
               | amiss.
               | 
               | I won't explain my justification, since I'm supposed to
               | be working right now. ;-)
        
               | skeaker wrote:
               | Fortunately the moderation here isn't a faceless monolith
               | and if you email them they would most likely be happy to
               | cooperate with your concerns about this.
        
               | willy_k wrote:
               | You've definitely described an invasion of privacy, just
               | not one perpetrated by HN.
        
             | leeoniya wrote:
             | pretty sure it's because HN's position/rank algorithm is
             | heavily weighted towards post age. so if it got upmodded
             | but retained yesterday's timestamp it would not get much
             | hang time.
             | 
             | (speaking as someone with a few previous second-chance
             | submissions)
        
             | blackshaw wrote:
             | As dang explains in one of the linked posts, it's because
             | if they don't do it, the discussion usually becomes "how is
             | this on the front page when it's 2 days old?" instead of
             | discussing the topic at hand.
             | 
             | Of course in this case we're now discussing the opposite
             | question and still not discussing the topic at hand.
        
         | scrlk wrote:
         | dang explains the mechanics behind the second-chance pool here:
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308
         | 
         | Regarding timestamp inconsistencies:
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19774614
        
           | georgehill wrote:
           | Wow, this is super cool! Thanks!
        
           | tommiegannert wrote:
           | I wonder what would happen to Reddit if moderators could
           | order posts manually (other than stickies).
        
       | tromp wrote:
       | > Can we improve 3.993 to 3.9? Maybe to 3.4? And what about 3?"
       | 
       | Pi is feeling a little left out. If that turns out to be the true
       | asymptotic behavior of Ramsey numbers, it would make one of the
       | worst ever methods for computing digits of pi...
        
         | OJFord wrote:
         | I thought it was entertainingly specific, and fortunately the
         | abstract at least [0] was slightly less immediately beyond me
         | than I feared, to satisfy my curiosity a bit:
         | 
         | The main proof is an improvement to the 4^k bound (standing
         | since 1935) to (4-eps)^k _for some epsilon_.
         | 
         | They additionally prove (I guess they have properties that make
         | it slightly easier than other rounder/bigger numbers?) it for
         | eps=2^-10 and eps=2^-7 specifically.
         | 
         | (3.993 then comes from the latter, 4 minus it gives 3.9921 and
         | change, but of course you need to round that _up_ to 3.993 in
         | order to say it 's a bound: it's not definitely less than
         | 3.992, since it could lie between the two.)
         | 
         | So yes maybe/it probably can be improved from 3.993, because
         | that's a bit of a tangential claim anyway - the main thing is
         | that it's 'some non-zero amount less than 4'^k.
         | 
         | (But mostly yes it was beyond me, I won't pretend to be able to
         | even attempt to understand the proof really.)
         | 
         | [0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.09521
        
       | itscodingtime wrote:
       | Can someone explain to me why changing the top right and bottom
       | right edges to blue in the R(3) = 6 does not work ?
        
         | davidnc wrote:
         | There's still a red clique. And changing any of those 3 to blue
         | crates a blue clique.
        
           | itscodingtime wrote:
           | Ah, thanks. I see it now.
        
       | quijoteuniv wrote:
       | Do i get this right? This discovery let you calculate the minimun
       | amount of grafana dashboards you need to monitor a kubernetes
       | cluster or the minimun amount of dasboards behind you in a
       | linkedin photo to look cool enough?
        
         | dpflan wrote:
         | Yes, exactly. Care to share an example of what you're talking
         | about? You may have found a new realm for research...
        
         | quickthrower2 wrote:
         | It also how the EKS (Entropy Khaos Service) returns a timestamp
         | representing the end of the universe.
        
           | gafferongames wrote:
           | Finally, omega star will get their shit together.
        
         | pas wrote:
         | only theoretically, and only if UP=nP, in practice we know that
         | k = 8s (or in smaller abelian deployment rings k = 3s = 0s mod
         | 443)
        
       | IceMichael wrote:
       | I get that this is really interesting and I surely enjoyed the
       | read... But has it really any practical implications? I mean, in
       | a sense, there are so many mathematical riddles... Anyways, I'm
       | fine to ignore this question. Very nice!
        
         | throw_pm23 wrote:
         | Before someone jumps at you for daring to ask this question...
         | yes, there are many many math riddles, and indeed not all are
         | equally important, and we may not always know in advance which
         | ones are.
         | 
         | Some turn out to be more "productive" in the sense of leading
         | to development of techniques, connections to other fields, etc.
         | 
         | Ramsey theory (the riddle discussed in the article) is one of
         | these, here is just a short list of nontrivial applications to
         | CS (admittedly, mostly to theory of CS):
         | 
         | https://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/TOPICS/ramsey/ramsey.html
        
         | treprinum wrote:
         | Not sure, one can just state that chaos does not exist as with
         | a huge number of items (10^200+) some sort of a rule always
         | emerges.
        
       | sfink wrote:
       | Heh. I was not prepared for the punchline that this "only" goes
       | from 4^k to 3.993^k. I mean, they're creating a whole new form of
       | proof that will almost certainly allow further decreases, and
       | they generously aren't holding back until they make a bigger
       | dent, but it just intuitively feels like the true value has got
       | to be way, way smaller.
       | 
       | (On a side note, I am so often stunned by the quality of articles
       | on Quanta Magazine. I sorta thought this type of quality writing
       | was dead and gone from the freely accessible web.)
        
         | stronglikedan wrote:
         | > Quanta Magazine
         | 
         | Their YT videos are also top notch.
        
         | onetimeuse92304 wrote:
         | I think you are possibly missing the possibility that going
         | from 4^k to 3.993^k might involve learning something new about
         | the problem. Frequently learning something new is more
         | important than the absolute magnitude of the improvement.
        
           | a1369209993 wrote:
           | > might involve learning something new about the problem
           | 
           | I think that's almost literally what sfink said though:
           | 
           | > > they're creating a whole new form of proof that will
           | almost certainly allow further decreases
        
         | geodel wrote:
         | > I sorta thought this type of quality writing was dead and
         | gone from the freely accessible web
         | 
         | It is working because its funded by Hedge fund founder
         | billionaire/mathematician and they are not looking for
         | subscription revenues (yet).
        
           | julianeon wrote:
           | That explains it. I also wondered how the ad-supported
           | Buzzfeed style web could make the money math work out. Its
           | good to know that's not the source.
        
           | tecleandor wrote:
           | Oh, I didn't notice it's Jim Simmons's. I saw his opening
           | lecture at 2014's ICM in Seoul, before the Fields Medals.
           | There were lots of questions about how to make money, even
           | when he previously stated that he wouldn't answer any of
           | those.
        
       | ChrisKnott wrote:
       | Contemporaneous thread from the Cambridge edition of the seminar
       | https://nitter.net/wtgowers/status/1636632071069106181#m
       | 
       | (They celebrated with a pint)
        
       | baidifnaoxi wrote:
       | Im not a mathematician, but does this have potential application
       | in some Neural Networks and such where dangerous connections or
       | isolated information flows could exist?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-12-11 23:00 UTC)