Now you're just humiliating him. I thought that you were talking about something in the lines of the four-colouring theorem.
If he did his work right the proof of each individual lemma is a trivial thing; only their connection is non-trivial. And this is where lies the beauty and ingenuity of his proof. To murder it with formal language is... unthinkable. And to require formal language side by side with natural language you're doubting his and his peers' competence.
You seem to take issue with the fact the only a few enlightened souls can check the proof; it is sad indeed. If it were a formal proof anyone who knew the first thing about computers could verify it.
But there's no way around it. If you (or I) would just check it with a computer, nothing of value would be gained; the interest is not so much in the result, but in the techniques used in the proof, and you wouldn't learn that.
For example, in Perelman's famous result he perfected a very powerful tool (the Ricci flow), that is being widely used in other areas of mathematics.
Of course there will be an error with this proof. Many errors, actually. Most of them irrelevant. Maybe one of them is not. You know what? It will be caught in peer-review, exactly as it's been happening in the last centuries.
There's a reason noone uses formal proofs in mathematics. They're dull. They're slow. And we trust peer-review (for correctness, anyway).
What would be the use of a proof that no human can understand?
I think this is the first time a serious researcher publishes a paper through email. Makes me wonder if he is actually publishing it or just asking for peer-review from his colleagues.
Or maybe he is trying to best Perelman in insanity. After all, even Perelman put the paper in arXiv.
Anyway, about the paper itself; I am a physicist, and he does say correct things about the Ising model and phase transitions. Unfortunately, it is only a small part of his proof that I can grasp. So I think he is dead serious.
Heisenberg's theorem is a very fundamental result of quantum mechanics, and its demise would have preposterous consequences.
The problem with Nature Physics is that they try to be a journal for "broad audience". That means zero technical details, and zero chance of evaluating the paper for yourself. However, their referees are usually very serious.
In a nutshell, TFA from Ars Technica is (-1) Troll. Pure sensationalistic bullshit. TFP from Nature Physics is still sensationalistic, but at least states what they actually discovered. Just a generalisation of Heisenberg's theorem in the presence of entanglement, expressed via entropy inequalities (which is the right way to do). Afterwards they do a ridiculous and useless discussion of a protocol for quantum key distribution.
To be very clear: they did not discover anything that was not already known, just formalized an interesting scenario mathematically (which is hard and useful work, but not even near of "defeating Heisenberg's theorem").
The serious work is in the "supplementary information" which, of course, nobody reads (myself included).
I understand that only applies to Enterprise mode; so will enterprises revert to using passphrases? Or if you use passphrases you already don't have protection from your peers?
Also, TFA talks only abou WPA2. However, there seems to be no reason to think it does not apply to WPA as well. Is anyone sure?
Theory does not predict the radius of the proton (actually the root-mean-square charge radius), it only can be measured experimentally.
It is still interesting, because there are pretty good experiments that show different radius for the proton; either it's just experimental error (which would be boring), or there's something wrong with someone's theory (which could be very interesting, or very boring).
Remember, one does not measure the radius directly, the value depends on a lot of assumptions and calculations.
In a nutshell, it is the radius, and they determined this trough a new experimental method.
They needed a few QED calculations, yes, but this is very solid physics, and I'm more willing to bet on experimental error (of either part) than theory error.
He's probably referring to the no-signaling theorem. It says you can't obtain information locally about a measurement that was made somewhere else; hence transmitting information faster than light. It is quite trivial to prove:
P(a,b|A,B):= |<ab|psi>|^2
The probability that you get the results 'a' and 'b' given that you're measuring the observables A and B, over the state psi. Now, you're measuring observable A, and B is far away. You want to know what is possible to know about it. Well, you only have access to the marginal probability:
Where at the last line I used the fact that the sum over all possible results of experiment B is just the identity experiment.
So, the marginal probability at A does not depend in any way of the the experiment B that was made. Hence, no-signaling.
You probably won't understand it. I just want you to know that it is a theorem, and it is quite simple to prove (if you know QM). Of course, that does not prohibit FTL in general. Just with the quantum shit that is going on.
His manner of speech is utterly american. And it's not the first time I see this kind of rant. See the countless angry posts that appear every time global warming is mentioned.
Also, I don't claim that my conclusions about americans are scientific. It's hard to do reliable sociological experiments about these kind of things. Is just a gut feeling, antipathy, or if you prefer, rant.
Americans. You just have to politicise and get angry about every single issue... I bet that you don't even know physics, or have ever made science.
This is pretty standard stuff. We have a solid experimental datum that disagrees with the theory, so the theory has to be tweaked. How much? Dunno. Probably little. You should know that the Standard Model is extremely successful, and any new theory would have to generate mostly the same predictions.
Indeed, we have strong laws about abuse of the justice system: he could've used that.
But not about interpreting the constitution. Our libel laws (including no sympathy for anonymous speech) are in the constitution, so they haven't lower status than free speech. You can disagree (as half of Brasil does) with this manner of writing constitutions, but the judge can't just change this at whim.
You are obviously not an academic and have no idea how the grant process work.
First of all, you don't use the conclusions of the study as a justification to fund the study; that would be highly illogical. You write a general project "i want to study the ice cores
fuck that, you're probably just a corporate shill and I'm wasting my time.
I think that the dream of a mainstream community-based OS is dead now.
At least Fedora does not have these delusions of grandeur. It is a testbed for Red Hat, I'm OK with that. I don't want my OS to be interesting, for fuck's sake. I want it very predictable and unobtrusive. Is it too much to ask?
They're mostly complaining about the ubuntu devs: "Don't these these devs have anything else to do, other than toy with the placement of window buttons?"
My point was that the main thing wasn't the triviality of the change (which I think is the heart of the bikeshed tale), but the impossibility of deciding if the change was good or bad; hence the endless arguments.
In a way, the new button order makes more sense, maximise is the opposite of close and should be on the opposite side
"Makes sense", "opposite", blah blah. You're just demonstrating that there can't be objectivity on this issue. Nuclear reactors, OTOH, can be quite fatal if you change the order of the buttons.
The design team did not explain their decision because there's no explanation. It makes no sense, it's not better or worse. In the end, Mark was sincere: he put them on the left 'cos he wanted to toy with the right, that's it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he knew exactly how much attention his paper would get.
What he probably didn't know is that were disturbing flaws within it.
Even so, he was humble enough to RFC instead of just publishing it.
Now you're just humiliating him. I thought that you were talking about something in the lines of the four-colouring theorem.
If he did his work right the proof of each individual lemma is a trivial thing; only their connection is non-trivial. And this is where lies the beauty and ingenuity of his proof. To murder it with formal language is... unthinkable. And to require formal language side by side with natural language you're doubting his and his peers' competence.
You seem to take issue with the fact the only a few enlightened souls can check the proof; it is sad indeed. If it were a formal proof anyone who knew the first thing about computers could verify it.
But there's no way around it. If you (or I) would just check it with a computer, nothing of value would be gained; the interest is not so much in the result, but in the techniques used in the proof, and you wouldn't learn that.
For example, in Perelman's famous result he perfected a very powerful tool (the Ricci flow), that is being widely used in other areas of mathematics.
Are you raving mad?
Of course there will be an error with this proof. Many errors, actually. Most of them irrelevant.
Maybe one of them is not. You know what? It will be caught in peer-review, exactly as it's been happening in the last centuries.
There's a reason noone uses formal proofs in mathematics. They're dull. They're slow. And we trust peer-review (for correctness, anyway).
What would be the use of a proof that no human can understand?
I think this is the first time a serious researcher publishes a paper through email. Makes me wonder if he is actually publishing it or just asking for peer-review from his colleagues.
Or maybe he is trying to best Perelman in insanity. After all, even Perelman put the paper in arXiv.
Anyway, about the paper itself; I am a physicist, and he does say correct things about the Ising model and phase transitions. Unfortunately, it is only a small part of his proof that I can grasp. So I think he is dead serious.
Also, nice typography.
I am a physicist, and you are perfectly correct.
Heisenberg's theorem is a very fundamental result of quantum mechanics, and its demise would have preposterous consequences.
The problem with Nature Physics is that they try to be a journal for "broad audience". That means zero technical details, and zero chance of evaluating the paper for yourself. However, their referees are usually very serious.
In a nutshell, TFA from Ars Technica is (-1) Troll. Pure sensationalistic bullshit. TFP from Nature Physics is still sensationalistic, but at least states what they actually discovered. Just a generalisation of Heisenberg's theorem in the presence of entanglement, expressed via entropy inequalities (which is the right way to do).
Afterwards they do a ridiculous and useless discussion of a protocol for quantum key distribution.
To be very clear: they did not discover anything that was not already known, just formalized an interesting scenario mathematically (which is hard and useful work, but not even near of "defeating Heisenberg's theorem").
The serious work is in the "supplementary information" which, of course, nobody reads (myself included).
No. AFAIK, the vulnerabilities in WPA(1) only applies to WPA+TKIP. WPA+AES is still flawless.
And they don't lead to key retrival, so I wouldn't consider it to be pratically broken, anyway.
Is there any wi-fi crypto left standing?
I understand that only applies to Enterprise mode; so will enterprises revert to using passphrases? Or if you use passphrases you already don't have protection from your peers?
Also, TFA talks only abou WPA2. However, there seems to be no reason to think it does not apply to WPA as well. Is anyone sure?
Sorry about replying again, but radtea gave a better response below, please just ignore mine.
Humm, no, sorry.
Theory does not predict the radius of the proton (actually the root-mean-square charge radius), it only can be measured experimentally.
It is still interesting, because there are pretty good experiments that show different radius for the proton; either it's just experimental error (which would be boring), or there's something wrong with someone's theory (which could be very interesting, or very boring).
Remember, one does not measure the radius directly, the value depends on a lot of assumptions and calculations.
TFA links the real article, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/full/nature09250.html
You can read the abstract without paying the fee.
In a nutshell, it is the radius, and they determined this trough a new experimental method.
They needed a few QED calculations, yes, but this is very solid physics, and I'm more willing to bet on experimental error (of either part) than theory error.
About GUT, you're just making shit up. Stop it.
Can someone please mod TFA troll?
If you americans are finishing school without understanding percentages I'm going to seriously despise your country.
Physics is not a formal system.
No but yes. What you need to use them now is XeTeX, a TeX engine that lets you use OpenType fonts in your TeX documents.
LaTeX per se uses only Type 1 (actually a few more) fonts, and these aren't ready yet.
He's probably referring to the no-signaling theorem. It says you can't obtain information locally about a measurement that was made somewhere else; hence transmitting information faster than light. It is quite trivial to prove:
P(a,b|A,B) := |<ab|psi>|^2
The probability that you get the results 'a' and 'b' given that you're measuring the observables A and B, over the state psi. Now, you're measuring observable A, and B is far away. You want to know what is possible to know about it. Well, you only have access to the marginal probability:
P(a|A,B) = \sum_b |<ab|psi>|^2
P(a|A,B) = \sum_b <psi|ab><ab|psi>
P(a|A,B) = \sum_b <psi|a><a| |b><b||psi>
P(a|A,B) = <psi|a><a|\sum_b|b><b||psi>
P(a|A,B) = <psi|a><a| I |psi> = P(a|A)
Where at the last line I used the fact that the sum over all possible results of experiment B is just the identity experiment.
So, the marginal probability at A does not depend in any way of the the experiment B that was made. Hence, no-signaling.
You probably won't understand it. I just want you to know that it is a theorem, and it is quite simple to prove (if you know QM). Of course, that does not prohibit FTL in general. Just with the quantum shit that is going on.
His manner of speech is utterly american. And it's not the first time I see this kind of rant. See the countless angry posts that appear every time global warming is mentioned.
Also, I don't claim that my conclusions about americans are scientific. It's hard to do reliable sociological experiments about these kind of things. Is just a gut feeling, antipathy, or if you prefer, rant.
Americans. You just have to politicise and get angry about every single issue... I bet that you don't even know physics, or have ever made science.
This is pretty standard stuff. We have a solid experimental datum that disagrees with the theory, so the theory has to be tweaked. How much? Dunno. Probably little. You should know that the Standard Model is extremely successful, and any new theory would have to generate mostly the same predictions.
Pretty interesting life, you'd have.
Mans Rullgard:
"Ogg considered harmful"
Monty Montgomery:
""Ogg considered harmful" considered harmful"
Indeed, we have strong laws about abuse of the justice system: he could've used that.
But not about interpreting the constitution. Our libel laws (including no sympathy for anonymous speech) are in the constitution, so they haven't lower status than free speech. You can disagree (as half of Brasil does) with this manner of writing constitutions, but the judge can't just change this at whim.
I hope judges in other countries (and perhaps Brazil too) will realize that this is not a matter of law
I think you misunderstand the role of a judge.
You are obviously not an academic and have no idea how the grant process work.
First of all, you don't use the conclusions of the study as a justification to fund the study; that would be highly illogical. You write a general project "i want to study the ice cores
fuck that, you're probably just a corporate shill and I'm wasting my time.
I think that the dream of a mainstream community-based OS is dead now.
At least Fedora does not have these delusions of grandeur. It is a testbed for Red Hat, I'm OK with that. I don't want my OS to be interesting, for fuck's sake. I want it very predictable and unobtrusive. Is it too much to ask?
They're mostly complaining about the ubuntu devs: "Don't these these devs have anything else to do, other than toy with the placement of window buttons?"
Yes, I agree with you.
My point was that the main thing wasn't the triviality of the change (which I think is the heart of the bikeshed tale), but the impossibility of deciding if the change was good or bad; hence the endless arguments.
This is not a good example. See:
In a way, the new button order makes more sense, maximise is the opposite of close and should be on the opposite side
"Makes sense", "opposite", blah blah. You're just demonstrating that there can't be objectivity on this issue. Nuclear reactors, OTOH, can be quite fatal if you change the order of the buttons.
The design team did not explain their decision because there's no explanation. It makes no sense, it's not better or worse. In the end, Mark was sincere: he put them on the left 'cos he wanted to toy with the right, that's it.