The wonderful thing about a constructive solution to P=NP, is that you can use the solution to optimize itself. Suppose it is of polynomial order N. Just encode the statement "is there a program of length R that solves P=NP in polynomial order N-1" as a SAT, and use the N-order solution to solve it. Keep decreasing N until you can't anymore.
Then take a specific computer model, and encode optimality conditions as a SAT. You could then use the best known solution to solve that.
Sure, it might be more than a home PC could do, but if P=NP could be brought into the domain of polytime (and could be made distributed), then shortly after you'd have half the computer power in the world devoted to improving the solution. Absolutely no computational problem would be more important to humanity at that point. We'd eventually not just have "a solution", but we'd have "the best solution".
Actually, the statement "changing the puppet doesn't change the puppeteer" begs the question, "is the president a puppet under control of a puppeteer?"
I've no study to back me up, but I would expect that even with hoarding and investing, a rich person probably spends a lot more money than a poor person.
The current complexity of the tax system is the result of everyone thinking that their special situation deserves a special tax exception or privilege. That is why those rebate taxes for "necessities" are already a step in the wrong direction. If corporate incoming tax, personal income tax, and payroll taxes were removed as expenses from companies providing "necessities", then the resulting sales tax is probably not going to make anything that much more expensive than it originally was. The real problem is that introducing a class of "necessities" makes it politically necessary to find "necessities" to promise exceptions for to get elected.
The only way that the rich can avoid a sales tax is by buying internationally and importing. It's not really a difficult problem to solve, but creating such a subjective class of "necessities" is really a dangerous approach, especially since we may only get 1 real chance to change the tax code in the next few generations.
While it's the popular academic / economic opinion that hoarding money would be "breaking" the economy, I've never heard any empirical or logical justification for this. In fact, it's nearly the exact opposite behavior as printing money, which causes inflation and demonstrably hurts spending power and international relations in the economy.
Among Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, both are good people to vote for. Gary Johnson has the advantage of adding numbers to the libertarian party which affects some states laws. Ron Paul has the advantage of having well known positions.
In both cases, when the national conventions decide on their party platforms, they will see both of the numbers of people voting for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and try to pick those votes up. It changes the national discussion, and the nature of the national discussion has a great deal of influence on legislation.
How much do you think the word "terrorist" has affected national policy? Or the "war on drugs", or the "we're going to make jobs" line?...More so than any sitting official.
The words used in discussions have a lot of power, and voting for either of the above individuals strongly affects what phrases end up being popular.
I did not vote for a third party because even if everyone who wanted a third party voted third party, there are not enough votes to get that third party elected.
It's amazing how effective the DNC and RNC have been in pressuring people not to vote for third parties. It's not like it's some horse race that you lose money on if you don't vote for the winner.
The national conventions are the best people in the country at changing public opinion, and everyone believes that a 3rd party vote is "wasted". It's scary actually how people believe this. It makes me wonder if they couldn't get you all to believe that underwear is dangerous if they wanted to. If it kept them in power you'd all probably be walking around half naked by next week.
Third party votes ARE NOT INEFFECTIVE. They are so effective that the national conventions has given out plenty of excuses for everyone to pick from. The fact is, 3rd party votes change the national discussion, and that changes policy regardless of who is holding office.
Before the last election, was anyone discussing legalizing drugs? No. Before the last election, did anyone care about budgets and financial policy? No. Before the last election, were there any debate questions about the limited power of the federal government? No.
Third parties and lobbies make these things happen. You might not know how many people actually wrote in alternative candidate names, but the people writing next year's national convention platform know that number very accurately and want those votes.
Never compromise your principles and never have anything to show for it
I also vote third party. And considering that *this* is what you have to show for voting for the D/RNC, I'm much more proud of having "nothing" to show for it. My nothing is better than your this.
You know that after you watch a movie or hear a song, there is a copy of it in your own head. It's how you are able to do things like sing "happy birthday" without a cue card.
Similarly, you couldn't download a copyrighted song, have vinyl plates cut from it, press records, and sell those.
Actually you are in violation of law for downloading the song, the rest doesn't matter. It's copyright, not copy-and-then-sell-right. I want people to start going to trial for having copies in their brain. Actually I want copyright law to go to hell, it's an anachronism from the past that should have never existed.
Sounds to me like that's the root of the problem, the tickets are for the vehicle owner, and the legislator plates are not tied to the vehicle, thus the system can't pull the owner from the database. They could send it to the driver, but generally that doesn't stand up in court so the systems don't do that.
Sounds to me like the root of the problem is legislators getting special license plates. But when it's your job to give out favors to your supporters, why not have a few favors for yourself?
Because he WILLINGLY SIGNED UP WITH A SPY AGENCY, and accepted the responsibility for secret clearances, and that's how they handle "leaks".
I'm pretty sure the NSA et al. were already spying on him among everyone else before he joined the NSA. If the NSA was leaving everyone alone and then Snowden signed a contract with them, then you might have an argument for holding Snowden accountable to the contract.
As it is, since the NSA was the one who chose not to play nicely, anyone else can and should do whatever the hell they want in retaliation.
A geometric mean is the average of the logarithms. Most "natural" data is uniformly distributed over logarithmic values rather than direct values.
If you are dealing with data and you think the difference between 20 and 40 is more significant than the difference between 1000 and 1020, then you are probably dealing with that kind of log-uniform data.
This particular equation is not directly computable. It requires knowing things like how to close infinite sums, and how to ignore bad choices of parenthesis of the poor guy who had to come up with it. Maybe they didn't tell him it was going to be advertised.
It's an equation that looks hard, but is actually really really simple, which will actually attract the kind of people that militaries want. They want someone who can be made to be full of himself without ever actually considering the value of his choices or actions. Anyone with a competent level of skill in mathematics would not even consider the formula worth finishing (unless they were actually curious about the phone number itself).
Someone who doesn't get taken in with the self absorbed "I am great" feeling, but instead says "hmm this isn't actually all that great" is dangerous. Example: Snowden.
Just because some inbred assholes think they are divine (kings and queens) does not make them better than you or give them power over you.
And yet today we decide citizenship by what family you come from and where you are born, instead of where you live and how you live. With regards to "divine right", we haven't come as far as people like to pretend.
You are right in only a very narrow literal sense.
Thank you ^_^
I agree with you for the most part, I'd add a few things though. The 14th amendment is what you are referring to about rights being beyond any government encroachment. For a long time, the Slaughterhouse cases were the standard that SCOTUS used to interpret the 14th and decide which rights the states were not allowed to infringe upon, and that ruling was terrible.
It was effectively that the SCOTUS could pick and choose which rights State governments had to protect based on whether it was necessary for a functioning society, in the whatever the opinion of SCOTUS was for that time.
Recently in McDonald v Chicago (2010) they overturned the Slaughterhouse ruling and said that the States must respect all rights enumerated in the US Constitution, although by a narrow vote. In that case it was over Chicago laws infringing on the 2nd amendment.
However, if the constitution is silent on the subject of X, that just means it is the state's job to regulate X. You only have a "right" to X if no government feels like getting involved.
Just to nitpick and be more explicit, states only have powers if they do not conflict with federal powers *and* the state has enumerated the power in their state constitution. And I recommend that everyone reads their state constitution, you might have rights you never even knew about. For example, in my state we explicitly have the right to jury nullification.
Say you have a same-sex marriage in a state that recognizes it or a country that recognizes it. Now you move to Alabama. Are you unmarried? And can Alabama still discriminate against your marriage? Or does this just apply to the federal government?
US Constitution Article 4 Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
So in Alabama, Constitutionally, you are married. How you have to prove it to Alabama is a matter for the federal congress.
Now what it actually is in practice, I don't know, IANAL.
You need to read the constitution again. It does not "grant" rights, it delineates the more important ones.
That is correct, all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are retained by the people. That results in an infinite number of rights. For example, you actually do have a federal "right to fly", "right to drive", "right to marry whoever you want" simply by the fact that the constitution does not grant these powers to the general government.
The misunderstanding that the constitution would only grant a few finite rights was one of the strongest arguments against adopting the Bill of Rights.
Wikipedia covers it pretty well:
James Madison addressed what would become the Ninth Amendment as follows: It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
The 9th (and somewhat 10th) amendment were drafted for the purpose of avoiding confusion about the enumeration of powers and rights, but it is somewhat depressing that the majority of people today believe that their only federal rights are those outlined by the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.
This must be one of the most misunderstood aspects of rights and the declaration of independence. The authors of the declaration of independence were not ambiguous about what they meant: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
1) There exist certain rights. 2) Their existence is self evident. It is self evident that you are born alive, you are born with the ability to choose, and you are born with the ability to decide the purpose of your choices. The government may become destructive to the ends, but all humans have these "rights" by virtue of our existence. All of these capabilities apply to anyone who is alive and sentient unless they are being purposely interfered with, and they are not necessarily exhaustive. 3) These rights are endows "by our creator". If you are not theist then they are endowed by virtue of your existence; if you were a protestant in 1776 then they were endowed by the grace of God. 4) They are unalienable. Why would we go to war to fight to regain something that is unalienable? We didn't. We fought to obtain government rights for the purpose of stopping the government from interfering with these "self evident" rights.
As others mention, life liberty and property were not rights believed granted by the government. However, other rights are secured in order to prevent the government from interfering with the self evident rights. Your freedom of speech, your right to bear arms, even the nature of the US Constitution as a whitelist of powers for the Federal Government as made explicit by the 9th amendment are not the unalienable "self evident" rights that the declaration was referring to. These are rights that were alienated, required a lot of debate in order to find evidence justifying their existence, and must be fought for to be retained.
Well I for one am convinced. Thank god these files were classified, or else terrorists would know all about how to break WW2 codes. What if Snowden had leaked this? People could have died. People would have died.
What other things besides obsolete WW2 cryptanalysis could the NSA be keeping from terrorists? That's why it's so important for us to trust them.
Slashdot Mirror
The wonderful thing about a constructive solution to P=NP, is that you can use the solution to optimize itself. Suppose it is of polynomial order N. Just encode the statement "is there a program of length R that solves P=NP in polynomial order N-1" as a SAT, and use the N-order solution to solve it. Keep decreasing N until you can't anymore.
Then take a specific computer model, and encode optimality conditions as a SAT. You could then use the best known solution to solve that.
Sure, it might be more than a home PC could do, but if P=NP could be brought into the domain of polytime (and could be made distributed), then shortly after you'd have half the computer power in the world devoted to improving the solution. Absolutely no computational problem would be more important to humanity at that point. We'd eventually not just have "a solution", but we'd have "the best solution".
...nothing on it can be trusted.
I thought that was the point. Isn't that why you are supposed to have references?
I need to work on my reading comprehension. A giant head desk for me.
Actually, the statement "changing the puppet doesn't change the puppeteer" begs the question, "is the president a puppet under control of a puppeteer?"
*struggling breathing sounds*
....raises...the....raises...raises..the...ques---
I've no study to back me up, but I would expect that even with hoarding and investing, a rich person probably spends a lot more money than a poor person.
The current complexity of the tax system is the result of everyone thinking that their special situation deserves a special tax exception or privilege. That is why those rebate taxes for "necessities" are already a step in the wrong direction. If corporate incoming tax, personal income tax, and payroll taxes were removed as expenses from companies providing "necessities", then the resulting sales tax is probably not going to make anything that much more expensive than it originally was. The real problem is that introducing a class of "necessities" makes it politically necessary to find "necessities" to promise exceptions for to get elected.
The only way that the rich can avoid a sales tax is by buying internationally and importing. It's not really a difficult problem to solve, but creating such a subjective class of "necessities" is really a dangerous approach, especially since we may only get 1 real chance to change the tax code in the next few generations.
While it's the popular academic / economic opinion that hoarding money would be "breaking" the economy, I've never heard any empirical or logical justification for this. In fact, it's nearly the exact opposite behavior as printing money, which causes inflation and demonstrably hurts spending power and international relations in the economy.
How long are we going to pretend that the current spending on wars isn't just another form of welfare?
Among Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, both are good people to vote for. Gary Johnson has the advantage of adding numbers to the libertarian party which affects some states laws. Ron Paul has the advantage of having well known positions.
In both cases, when the national conventions decide on their party platforms, they will see both of the numbers of people voting for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and try to pick those votes up. It changes the national discussion, and the nature of the national discussion has a great deal of influence on legislation.
How much do you think the word "terrorist" has affected national policy? Or the "war on drugs", or the "we're going to make jobs" line? ...More so than any sitting official.
The words used in discussions have a lot of power, and voting for either of the above individuals strongly affects what phrases end up being popular.
I did not vote for a third party because even if everyone who wanted a third party voted third party, there are not enough votes to get that third party elected.
It's amazing how effective the DNC and RNC have been in pressuring people not to vote for third parties. It's not like it's some horse race that you lose money on if you don't vote for the winner.
The national conventions are the best people in the country at changing public opinion, and everyone believes that a 3rd party vote is "wasted". It's scary actually how people believe this. It makes me wonder if they couldn't get you all to believe that underwear is dangerous if they wanted to. If it kept them in power you'd all probably be walking around half naked by next week.
Third party votes ARE NOT INEFFECTIVE. They are so effective that the national conventions has given out plenty of excuses for everyone to pick from. The fact is, 3rd party votes change the national discussion, and that changes policy regardless of who is holding office.
Before the last election, was anyone discussing legalizing drugs? No.
Before the last election, did anyone care about budgets and financial policy? No.
Before the last election, were there any debate questions about the limited power of the federal government? No.
Third parties and lobbies make these things happen. You might not know how many people actually wrote in alternative candidate names, but the people writing next year's national convention platform know that number very accurately and want those votes.
Never compromise your principles and never have anything to show for it
I also vote third party. And considering that *this* is what you have to show for voting for the D/RNC, I'm much more proud of having "nothing" to show for it. My nothing is better than your this.
You know that after you watch a movie or hear a song, there is a copy of it in your own head. It's how you are able to do things like sing "happy birthday" without a cue card.
Similarly, you couldn't download a copyrighted song, have vinyl plates cut from it, press records, and sell those.
Actually you are in violation of law for downloading the song, the rest doesn't matter. It's copyright, not copy-and-then-sell-right. I want people to start going to trial for having copies in their brain. Actually I want copyright law to go to hell, it's an anachronism from the past that should have never existed.
Your post needs 1 more close parenthesis.
Just sayin.
Sounds to me like that's the root of the problem, the tickets are for the vehicle owner, and the legislator plates are not tied to the vehicle, thus the system can't pull the owner from the database. They could send it to the driver, but generally that doesn't stand up in court so the systems don't do that.
Sounds to me like the root of the problem is legislators getting special license plates. But when it's your job to give out favors to your supporters, why not have a few favors for yourself?
You've been robbed of something more important than your physical property. Enjoy living the rest of your life hoping you never piss a cop off.
Because he WILLINGLY SIGNED UP WITH A SPY AGENCY, and accepted the responsibility for secret clearances, and that's how they handle "leaks".
I'm pretty sure the NSA et al. were already spying on him among everyone else before he joined the NSA. If the NSA was leaving everyone alone and then Snowden signed a contract with them, then you might have an argument for holding Snowden accountable to the contract.
As it is, since the NSA was the one who chose not to play nicely, anyone else can and should do whatever the hell they want in retaliation.
A geometric mean is the average of the logarithms. Most "natural" data is uniformly distributed over logarithmic values rather than direct values.
If you are dealing with data and you think the difference between 20 and 40 is more significant than the difference between 1000 and 1020, then you are probably dealing with that kind of log-uniform data.
This particular equation is not directly computable. It requires knowing things like how to close infinite sums, and how to ignore bad choices of parenthesis of the poor guy who had to come up with it. Maybe they didn't tell him it was going to be advertised.
It's an equation that looks hard, but is actually really really simple, which will actually attract the kind of people that militaries want. They want someone who can be made to be full of himself without ever actually considering the value of his choices or actions. Anyone with a competent level of skill in mathematics would not even consider the formula worth finishing (unless they were actually curious about the phone number itself).
Someone who doesn't get taken in with the self absorbed "I am great" feeling, but instead says "hmm this isn't actually all that great" is dangerous. Example: Snowden.
I think the free variables for all the trig functions are supposed to cancel out, like sin(x)^2 + cos(x)^2 cancelling to become 1.
Just because some inbred assholes think they are divine (kings and queens) does not make them better than you or give them power over you.
And yet today we decide citizenship by what family you come from and where you are born, instead of where you live and how you live. With regards to "divine right", we haven't come as far as people like to pretend.
You are right in only a very narrow literal sense.
Thank you ^_^
I agree with you for the most part, I'd add a few things though. The 14th amendment is what you are referring to about rights being beyond any government encroachment. For a long time, the Slaughterhouse cases were the standard that SCOTUS used to interpret the 14th and decide which rights the states were not allowed to infringe upon, and that ruling was terrible.
It was effectively that the SCOTUS could pick and choose which rights State governments had to protect based on whether it was necessary for a functioning society, in the whatever the opinion of SCOTUS was for that time.
Recently in McDonald v Chicago (2010) they overturned the Slaughterhouse ruling and said that the States must respect all rights enumerated in the US Constitution, although by a narrow vote. In that case it was over Chicago laws infringing on the 2nd amendment.
However, if the constitution is silent on the subject of X, that just means it is the state's job to regulate X. You only have a "right" to X if no government feels like getting involved.
Just to nitpick and be more explicit, states only have powers if they do not conflict with federal powers *and* the state has enumerated the power in their state constitution. And I recommend that everyone reads their state constitution, you might have rights you never even knew about. For example, in my state we explicitly have the right to jury nullification.
Say you have a same-sex marriage in a state that recognizes it or a country that recognizes it. Now you move to Alabama. Are you unmarried? And can Alabama still discriminate against your marriage? Or does this just apply to the federal government?
US Constitution Article 4 Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
So in Alabama, Constitutionally, you are married. How you have to prove it to Alabama is a matter for the federal congress.
Now what it actually is in practice, I don't know, IANAL.
You need to read the constitution again. It does not "grant" rights, it delineates the more important ones.
That is correct, all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are retained by the people. That results in an infinite number of rights. For example, you actually do have a federal "right to fly", "right to drive", "right to marry whoever you want" simply by the fact that the constitution does not grant these powers to the general government.
The misunderstanding that the constitution would only grant a few finite rights was one of the strongest arguments against adopting the Bill of Rights.
Wikipedia covers it pretty well:
James Madison addressed what would become the Ninth Amendment as follows:
It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
The 9th (and somewhat 10th) amendment were drafted for the purpose of avoiding confusion about the enumeration of powers and rights, but it is somewhat depressing that the majority of people today believe that their only federal rights are those outlined by the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.
This must be one of the most misunderstood aspects of rights and the declaration of independence. The authors of the declaration of independence were not ambiguous about what they meant:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
1) There exist certain rights.
2) Their existence is self evident. It is self evident that you are born alive, you are born with the ability to choose, and you are born with the ability to decide the purpose of your choices. The government may become destructive to the ends, but all humans have these "rights" by virtue of our existence. All of these capabilities apply to anyone who is alive and sentient unless they are being purposely interfered with, and they are not necessarily exhaustive.
3) These rights are endows "by our creator". If you are not theist then they are endowed by virtue of your existence; if you were a protestant in 1776 then they were endowed by the grace of God.
4) They are unalienable. Why would we go to war to fight to regain something that is unalienable? We didn't. We fought to obtain government rights for the purpose of stopping the government from interfering with these "self evident" rights.
As others mention, life liberty and property were not rights believed granted by the government. However, other rights are secured in order to prevent the government from interfering with the self evident rights. Your freedom of speech, your right to bear arms, even the nature of the US Constitution as a whitelist of powers for the Federal Government as made explicit by the 9th amendment are not the unalienable "self evident" rights that the declaration was referring to. These are rights that were alienated, required a lot of debate in order to find evidence justifying their existence, and must be fought for to be retained.
Well I for one am convinced. Thank god these files were classified, or else terrorists would know all about how to break WW2 codes. What if Snowden had leaked this? People could have died. People would have died.
What other things besides obsolete WW2 cryptanalysis could the NSA be keeping from terrorists? That's why it's so important for us to trust them.