Profile

Cover photo
Marco Devillers
247,560 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

Marco Devillers

Shared publicly  - 
 
A long nightly read whereas I should have been coding.

I remain undecided.

I disagree with Knuth. I estimate I know where he comes from: Given advances in 3SAT solvers they seem to have broken some magical barrier and P=NP, maybe.

But 3SAT solvers mostly run over translated digital circuits and don't seem to do a lot more than very efficient local reasoning over parts of the graph usually mostly deriving small local facts. That doesn't seem to generalize.

Aaronson's intuition seems to be that (most) algorithms cleanly separate into P or NP and therefore any reduction would have been found by now.

I disagree with that too. What I observe is that people often have some idea about the complexity of an algorithm, say parsing with derivatives - which was believed to be exponential - but then, after analysis, that turns out to be cubic. But never an attempt is made to 'connect' P and NP so I don't believe you can expect a non-trivial reduction between them to pop up. That doesn't seem to make sense either.

I remain thoroughly undecided.

Where I do agree with Aaronson is that I also firmly believe it is time to start brute forcing hints about P?=NP, and especially about digital circuits. It's a cheap approach, it will trivially pay off in publications and new research methods, there are an uncomforting number of unknowns for even the most trivial questions about circuit sizes in various classes, and since everybody is almost completely clueless you can't possibly do worse than anyone else.

Finally, It was pleasing to notice that the latest 'proof' was indeed flawed, as I thought, by trying to generalize a result from randomized SAT instances to structured instances. (My intuition was just based on something you notice if you translate circuits to 3SAT by hand. It's not about clause/variable phase transitions.)

We still don't know doodles. I say brute force it.
1
Marco Devillers's profile photo
3 comments
 
Ah. I forgot. The (other) major reason that one proof was flawed is that a phase transition is an experimental result given a specific algorithm, not all possible algorithms. You're using that we need exponential algorithms to solve NP problems as far as we know. Circular reasoning.

Well, that's what I remember. Long time ago.
Add a comment...

Marco Devillers

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
Fair play

> It has for instance been shown that with certain logical systems there can be no machine which will distinguish provable formulae of the system from unprovable, i.e. that there is no test that the machine can apply which will divide propositions certainly into these two classes. Thus if a machine is made for this purpose it must in some cases fail to give an answer. On the other hand if a mathematician is confronted with such a problem he would search around and find new methods of proof, so that he ought to be able to reach a decision about any given formula. This would be the argument.

Against it I would say that fair play must be given to the machine. Instead of it sometimes giving no answer we could arrange that it gives occasional wrong answers. But the human mathematician would likewise make blunders when trying out new techniques. It is easy for us to regard these blunders as not counting and give him another chance, but the machine would probably be allowed no mercy. In other words, then, if a machine is expected to be infallible, it cannot also be intelligent.

- Alan Turing, 1947

http://www.turing.org.uk/publications/ex11.html
3 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...

Marco Devillers

Shared publicly  - 
 
Yes, a good article. But I knew this already, although it is phrased very eloquently and backed by facts.

I was hoping for more of a message than only "We need to rethink the future." 
 
The Internet has increased conflict and ideological segregation between opposing views, granting a disproportionate amount of clout to the most extreme opinions.

"People who have long entertained right-wing populist ideas, but were never confident enough to voice them openly, are now in a position to connect to like-minded others online and use the internet as a megaphone for their opinions. They become more confident and vigorous, because they see that others share their beliefs. This is concerning, because we know from previous research that increased contact with people who share our views makes our previously held beliefs more extreme. It grants us new group identities that permit us to do things we deemed inconceivable before."

[...]

"The greater diversity and availability of digital content implies that people may choose to only consume content that matches their own worldviews. We choose who to follow and who to befriend. The resulting echo chambers tend to amplify and reinforce our existing opinions, which is dysfunctional for a healthy democratic discourse. And while social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter generally have the power to expose us to politically diverse opinions, research suggests that the filter bubbles they sometimes create are, in fact, exacerbated by the platforms’ personalization algorithms, which are based on our social networks and our previously expressed ideas.

This means that instead of creating an ideal type of a digitally mediated “public agora”, which would allow citizens to voice their concerns and share their hopes, the internet has actually increased conflict and ideological segregation between opposing views, granting a disproportionate amount of clout to the most extreme opinions."

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/08/the-biggest-threat-to-democracy-your-social-media-feed
By granting a disproportionate amount of clout to the most extreme opinions, the internet could pose a severe threat to democracy as we know it.
5 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...

Marco Devillers

Shared publicly  - 
 
It is sovereignty, stupid. 
1
Add a comment...

Marco Devillers

Shared publicly  - 
 
Lisp or Mathematica?
1
Add a comment...

Communities

21 communities

Marco Devillers

Shared publicly  - 
 
Why a monad is just calculating 'modulo a theory'

Did I post this before? If anything it's just a trivial observation.

A monad is usually defined in terms of unit and bind, and some laws which I find nonsensical from a foundational perspective and useless from a programmer's perspective.

The definitions of unit and bind.

unit: a -> M a
bind: M a -> (a -> M b) -> M b

Erase the theory M.

unit: a -> a
bind: a -> (a -> b) -> b

Change the order of the arguments of bind.

unit: a -> a
bind: (a -> b) -> a -> b

And there you have it. Or them. You end up with id and apply. A monad is nothing more than overloading apply such that one can calculate 'modulo a theory.'

And that theory may be everything, from solving differential equations to baking a pizza. So, never ask: 'Can I do this with a monad?' The answer is a trivial: 'Yes.' Doesn't imply you should and usually implies you shouldn't, though.



1
Add a comment...

Marco Devillers

Shared publicly  - 
 
Contemporary thinkers, like Aristotle, Rousseau, Marx, Nietzsche, were the influenced, not the influences. #Society
1
Add a comment...

Marco Devillers

Shared publicly  - 
 
Sef, "De Leven". Titlesong of Rabat. Dutch, 2011.

Soms okura, 8 gangen
Soms tempura, champagne
Soms, soms visvim
Soms Gucci
Soms Comme des Garçons
Soms Louis
Soms dansen
Soms lichtjes
Soms, soms drankjes
Soms flitsen
Soms 150 paar kicks
En soms helemaal niks
Soms New York
Soms Londen
Soms, soms high, stomdronken
Soms, soms Tokyo
Soms Parijs
Soms puur
Soms met ijs
Soms shows
Soms aandacht
Soms, soms weekend vanaf maandag
Soms, soms allemaal chicks
En soms helemaal niks

Dit is de leven
En ik weet dat dit de leven is
En ik weet niet of het nog lang duurt
Maar zolang het er nog even is
Geniet ik er van, elke dag
En ik weet dat dit de leven is
En ik weet niet of het nog lang duurt
Maar zolang het er nog even is
Geniet ik er van, elke dag

Soms balen
Soms huilen
Soms, soms liever niet naar buiten
Soms, soms bang zijn voor later
Soms, soms mis ik mijn vader
Soms, soms crisis
Soms verdriet
Soms, soms eventjes niet
Soms, soms even een dip
En soms helemaal niks
Soms gezeik
Soms gehaat
Soms, soms gekijk
Soms op straat
Soms uitschelden, omkijken
Soms bek houden, doorbijten
Soms, soms flippen, doorslaan
Soms, soms slikken, doorgaan
Soms, soms een tand door een lip
En soms helemaal niks

Dit is de leven
En ik weet dat dit de leven is
En ik weet niet of het nog lang duurt
Maar zolang het er nog even is
Geniet ik er van, elke dag
En ik weet dat dit de leven is
En ik weet niet of het nog lang duurt
Maar zolang het er nog even is
Geniet ik er van, elke dag

Als het morgen over is
En er helemaal niks meer over is
Dan kan ik zeggen dat ik heb geleefd
En dat ik meer ben vergeten dan je weet, snap je?
Stapje voor stapje dichterbij het einde
Jij leeft je leven, ik leef de mijne
En mijne is bijna met geen pen te beschrijven
Daarom flitsen in me hoofd allemaal lijnen voorbij als HSL-treinen
Of sneller, Concordes waarschijnlijk.
Nergens spijt van, alles was mooi
Ook de dalen, en die andere zooi
Alles gepakt, niks laten liggen
De vijver van de leven heb ik leeg zitten vissen
Ik heb niks gemist
Echt helemaal niks

Dit is de leven
En ik weet dat dit de leven is
En ik weet niet of het nog lang duurt
Maar zolang het er nog even is
Geniet ik er van, elke dag
En ik weet dat dit de leven is
En ik weet niet of het nog lang duurt
Maar zolang het er nog even is
Geniet ik er van, elke dag

 ·  Translate
1
Add a comment...

Marco Devillers

Shared publicly  - 
 
Did someone ever notice how un-American Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again" is? It's a full admission that the American dream isn't working for many people, a complete reactionary statement which expresses that the present is broken with a longing for the past.
1
Add a comment...

Marco Devillers

Shared publicly  - 
 
Illogical Nonsense

"I am wary of all papers with the term 'Monad' in it. I've stated it before, if your operators are solely determined by unit and bind, I cannot trust you're thinking straight. I.e.,

> unit: a -> M a
> bind: M b -> (b -> M a) -> M a

It is trivial to note that any result object is a value in 'M a' and, in the absence of observers, you cannot state anything meaningful about that value. (Absurdly, for any 'a', 'M a' might denote a singleton set - everything is mapped to the same value - for instance.)

So, sure, you can chain effect types but you do not know anything in a formal mathematical sense about the result value.

I have already stated that Haskell's IO paradigm predominantly relies on the/this fact that a Monad acts as a logical sink. Everything is supposedly pure since you cannot even express what an impure computation even does (worse, it is categorical mathematical sloppiness which makes it work.) At least, Clean's uniqueness types gives you that; moreover, that extends to formal efficient treatment of 'impure' data structures."

(Taken from a post of me somewhere on the internet.)
1
Add a comment...

Marco Devillers

Shared publicly  - 
 
If you read a lot of science, you are a disaster tourist.
1
Add a comment...

Marco Devillers

Shared publicly  - 
1
Add a comment...
Communities
21 communities
Basic Information
Gender
Male