Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 1400. page

>>8324898
durr, it's mean N=1 or P=0. Isn't that super easy?

Okay fuckdingo In general there are three sets of computational problems: Those that can definitely be solved in polynomial time or less (P), those that can definitely not be solved in polynomial time, only in exponential time (EXP) and those that there is currently no polynomial time algorithm to solve but it hasnt been proven that there is NO polynomial time solution (NP). The question of P=NP is whether there exists a polynomial time solution to any of the NP problems. All NP problems are reducible to eachother so a polynomial time solution to one NP would result in a poly solution to all, which is a big deal.

>>8324898
P and NP are classifications of algorithms that solve problems. P stands for Polynomial time, while NP stands for Non-deterministic Polynomial time.

An example of a problem in P is the sorting problem: You're given a list of unsorted data and asked to sort it. You can write an algorithm that sorts the data in O(nlogn) time. What that means is that if you have a dataset of size n, you can perform n*log(n) operations on that data and have it sorted at the end. As n grows, the number of calculations you need to perform grows polynomially.

An example of a problem in NP is the travelling salesman problem, where you're given a list of coordinates in 2-space and you need to find the shortest route to visit all of those coordinates once and return to your starting point with the least possible distance. An algorithm to solve the TSP might take O(2^n), which means that as n grows, the amount of calculations you need to perform increases exponentially.

P=NP is asking for a proof whether the set of problems in P and NP are equal, or whether there are problems in NP which are not in P. It seems like P != NP but no one has been able to prove it one way or the other.

What's super interesting is that computer scientists have shown that NP problems are connected. IE if you have a solution to one NP problem, you could transform any other NP problem so that it could be solved by that original algorithm. This implies that there may be some common intangible element of hard problems that makes them hard. If anyone could provide a proof that P != NP, it would have far-reaching implications about the way we think about computation and problem-solving. It would be on the level of Godel's incompleteness theorem in terms of philosophical implications

Yes.
Depends on the hardware implementation.

Yes and yes, provided it was a perfect imitation. In practice we could only ever get a pretty good approximation, and the answer for that is tricky. I think the brain can be mathematically modeled and if that is the case then it can be computed. Hence, I believe a sufficiently powerful computer could simulate a brain which I think would cause consciousness to arise.

>>8324819
>Is it be possible to recreate a human brain using mechanical and electronic parts, that will function just like a brain?

Yes, you could (in theory) create an analog that behaves exactly like the real thing would.

>bonus question: would that brain have consciousness?
Nobody knows and nobody will ever be able to answer.

>>8324754
I too hate the widespread use of the term "app". Even though it's as old as all the other terms on that image, it was never used because it's oversimplified and retarded.

Now oversimplified and retarded is the target.

>start early
>get into a rhythm
>don't leave questions unanswered

>>8324754
Don't get bored and distracted, then masturbate.
Don't use 4chan.
Just start and once you're in the mindset it simply becomes that you will only continue.

File: tumblr_nu8ty26ddO1u46ph1o1_1280.jpg (511KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 800x1200px

The only thing I need to do in this semester is to write my master's thesis.

File: list.png (55KB, 1421x162px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1421x162px

>>8324692
What engineering is that? ;^)

>>8324704
>Spics aren't smart enough to go to colleges. Now fuck off

File: tumblr_npffynV0Dc1synu21o1_1280-e1452061588399.jpg (126KB, 611x800px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 611x800px

People on this board are (on average) 17-18-year-old kids who have just started studying in university. They don't need rigor, they need intuition and motivation. Rigor is for post-graduates such as myself.

>>8324530
its calculus for engineers m8. engineering is literally "seems about right: the job"

>>8324537
>They don't need rigor
stop posting any time
Rigor is the first thing you should learn. Especially if you're an engineer, because you're sure not going to learn it in materials science classes.

File: 1415219643051.jpg (216KB, 1226x1080px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1226x1080px

Average biologist has around 115 IQ. For comparison, the average physicist has an IQ of 132. I wouldn't wait up for any "super mega DNA generating magic" in your lifetime.

>>8324395
There are methods to create an arbitrarily large dna segment, stupid brainlet.
I don't know about folding and packing, but I'm pretty sure it won't be that hard.

File: 1453446532321.jpg (76KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x640px

>>8324410
>but I'm pretty sure it won't be that hard.
If it wasn't that hard, then it'd be developed by now.

File: 1450544193622.jpg (96KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 500x750px

I could start ranting how CS is not science and how it doesn't belong to this board, but I'll take another approach instead:

Programming is not CS. Unless you are talking about mathematical optimization, i.e integer/linear programming. OOP is purely software engineering shit and belongs to >>>/g/.

>>8324373
Class inheritance polymorphism etc are usable design patterns that allow to make large programs with a lot of functionality. However I'm against it. I rather have decorator pattern with a few singletons to tie everything together. With OOP you can say Object A is a Object B I rather use Object C has an Object A and an Object B. This makes everything a lot more clear and readable. The old OOP paradigm is dying and we all know it.

I'm gonna reply to this thread because I disagree with the above poster and his claim that software development paradigms are not relevant to discussions of science and math.

OP, I have no qualms with OOP. It's main issue is that it is very easy to be sloppy, and that it shouldn't be taught until after prodedural programming.

>>8324318
>during the next half-century
2016-2066? any reasonable prospect? sure

and by the way as far as i know
>the damage the body accumulates over time during the ageing process
is just a dominating mindset right now - there's still a possibility that ageing is genetically programmed

>>8324318
No. This will literally never become possible.
Ok, maybe not "never", but definitely not in the next half-century and it will never be the practical solution.
How are you planning to "reverse" damage done on hundreds of billions of unique cells? How are you going to retain the macroscopic morphology?
These kind of shit aren't really doable.
We will all die. There's no way around it.

Maybe you can prolong your death or improve the quality of life until death, but death is a given.

>>8324336
>there's still a possibility that ageing is genetically programmed

That'd be even better since you could fiddle with that more easily to turn it off. It is easier to fix 1 thing than it is to fix 100.

Smoke and mirrors bro

Have you had sex yet?

>>8324293
By not breeding.

gtfo, meme-monkey

>>8324276
Are you okay, OP?

I'd rather be poor than have a job as high-stress and unrewarding as an MD.

no we're not

>>8324102

yes

>>8324102
You're a sack of holy shit.

>>8323948
Why hasn't perelman followed in kaczynskis footsteps yet.

Drop my gloves and start shadowboxing in front of him. Against those eyebrows it's however useless.

>>8324139
you should follow in boltzmann's footsteps desu

have you never played call of duty you pleb ?

they do yes

Do planes going Mach 2 have to account for the Coriolis effect?

It's a fictional concept not a scientific one.

>>8323852
None whatsoever. Its just a way to make the math work

>>8323852
there is no evidence that can prove or disprove infinite universes. It's less of a scientific theory and more of a neat idea.

We may have proof of parallel universes, but infinite universes cannot be proven.

>>8323673
>I am more intelligent than average
[citation needed]

>>8323675
ye, IQ test proved. I'm not saying I'm Einstein.

>>8323687
are you actually good at anything aside from an iq test?