Yes you are right - I should have been more clear about the difference between induction in the context of science vs. math.
An inductive proof in math is the process of proving A is true for all members of B by first proving that A is true for one member of B and then proving that if A is true for one member of B is it is true for other members of B instead. Mathematicians call it an inductive proof however it is proven for all possible existing cases using deductive logic.
In science induction is the concept that so long as there are no counter examples of a theory, the theory is considered correct. A theory like the Reinmann Conjecture would stand as correct in science because science does not have a set of axioms from which its theories can be proven so it must rely on the absence of counter examples.
You are mixing the basic tenants of physics and mathematics, not a good thing to do. Science is a mix of inductive and deductive logic, math has a higher standard and doesn't admit inductive proofs.
Three guys were vacationing in Scotland. One was an astronomer, one a physicist and one a mathematician.
In their travels they chance on a black sheep grazing in a field.
Astronomer: All sheep in Scotland are black Physicist: Some sheep in Scotland are black Mathematician: There is one sheep in a field in Scotland that is black on at least one side.
Ok, so you use this algorithm, checked the results and find the result is wrong. Guess what!! YOU HAVE JUST WON $1,000,000 because you have proved the Reinmann Conjecture is wrong. But that won't help you very much if you are using it to calculate a re-entry trajectory.
Up until then though all that code you have put in your systems is worthless, a waste of time and is probably generating false alarms due to bugs every now and then.
There are a lot of results based on assuming the conjecture is true, including a variety of factoring and root finding algorithms that are computationally very useful.
Until it is proven you really don't know if these algorithms are giving correct answers.
This is why it is so important and has a big prize associated to it.
Well duh this is what we have been saying - this is a preprint and is likely to have errors. Whether or not they can be repaired is open to question.
Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem took a long time to go through the review and repair process. And there was at least one pretty hard problem that had to be fixed.
Slashdot's "journalistic" process really suxors when it comes to this sort of stuff.
What puzzles me is why this would be something the Bavarian Parliment would do. I would think this would be done at the national level; US laws that enable wiretaps are all at the Federal level.
Hey! I enjoyed my statistical thermodynamics course. I can see though if it isn't taught by somebody good it could a problem. Fortunately the guy I had was good.
Yeah, the French public medical system works so well that 92% of its residents carry supplementary private medical insurance and there are copayments or deductibles ranging from 10-40%. And despite the public oversight it still manages to be the 3rd most expensive system (in terms of % of GDP) in the world.
How so? The whole point of packet-switching networks is that they are neutral to what contents is being transfered over them and from where.
The problem is that real time applications work very poorly in a statistical best-effort packet switched network. There are only two ways to deal with this.
1. Priorities
2. Build out to where capacity always exceeds demand.
Both are expensive. Which is more expensive? That is the big question.
Real time traffic is pretty easy to characterize - there is a correlation in terms of the protocols and the traffic type - for example such traffic almost utilizes UDP since TCP error recovery is a waste of time.
Likewise it is pretty easy to profile a large file download over http as being non-interactive.
I'm not saying that such forms of identification are perfect, and there will be a moving target element to the identification, but they already work reasonably well to prioritize VOIP traffic.
It's a basic system design principle to give interactive or real-time processes priority over non-interactive processes. Anything else is nonsense from any sort of usability perspective.
This has to be the most ridiculous article in the history of slashdot.
"Lawrence Roberts is just another guy with the title: 'Inventor of the Internet' in news articles."
That's right, just another guy. Who just happened to be the Program Manager and principle architect for the initial design and construction of ARPAnet.
OED reminds us, the word is actually American in origin, first turning up there about 1852. The OED is firm in dismissing one often-heard view of its origin, from the Dutch word pappekak for soft faeces. It says firmly "no such word appears to be attested in Dutch" but points to the very similar word poppekak, which appears only in the old set phrase zo fijn als gemalen poppekak, meaning to show excessive religious zeal, but which literally means "as fine as powdered doll shit". The word was presumably taken to the USA by Dutch settlers; the scatological associations were lost when the word moved into the English-language community.
The first half of the word is the Dutch pop for a doll, which may be related to our term of endearment, poppet; the second half is essentially the same as the old English cack for excrement; the verb form of this word is older than the noun, and has been recorded as far back as the fifteenth century.
Despite some uninformed speculation, there's no link with the vulgar meaning of cock. Nor is it linked to the sense of cock for rubbish (as in phrases like that's a load of old cock), as that's a shortened form of cock and bull story, which comes from a fable concerning a bull and a cockerel.
So.. you're saying the rich should pay more? Why exactly?
To prevent long-term accumulation of a vast preponderance of wealth in the hands of a small percentage of the population.
Economic disparity is correlated with a wide range of societal problems; in fact I'd put forth the proposition that the basic concepts of human rights are impossible unless there is some reasonable distribution of wealth and economic parity within a society.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes you are right - I should have been more clear about the difference between induction in the context of science vs. math.
An inductive proof in math is the process of proving A is true for all members of B by first proving that A is true for one member of B and then proving that if A is true for one member of B is it is true for other members of B instead. Mathematicians call it an inductive proof however it is proven for all possible existing cases using deductive logic.
In science induction is the concept that so long as there are no counter examples of a theory, the theory is considered correct. A theory like the Reinmann Conjecture would stand as correct in science because science does not have a set of axioms from which its theories can be proven so it must rely on the absence of counter examples.
If you are in the vehicle that is re-entering you aren't going to care about the prize nor have time to hire anyone.
Well, at least you know who not to vote for next time.
You are mixing the basic tenants of physics and mathematics, not a good thing to do. Science is a mix of inductive and deductive logic, math has a higher standard and doesn't admit inductive proofs.
Three guys were vacationing in Scotland. One was an astronomer, one a physicist and one a mathematician.
In their travels they chance on a black sheep grazing in a field.
Astronomer: All sheep in Scotland are black
Physicist: Some sheep in Scotland are black
Mathematician: There is one sheep in a field in Scotland that is black on at least one side.
Ok, so you use this algorithm, checked the results and find the result is wrong. Guess what!! YOU HAVE JUST WON $1,000,000 because you have proved the Reinmann Conjecture is wrong. But that won't help you very much if you are using it to calculate a re-entry trajectory.
Up until then though all that code you have put in your systems is worthless, a waste of time and is probably generating false alarms due to bugs every now and then.
Nah, it really is much better to have the proof.
Some Sources:
http://www.iedm.org/uploaded/pdf/avril2008_en.pdf
http://www.aoninsurexpat.com/Health/health-insurance-france.jsp
There are a lot of results based on assuming the conjecture is true, including a variety of factoring and root finding algorithms that are computationally very useful.
Until it is proven you really don't know if these algorithms are giving correct answers.
This is why it is so important and has a big prize associated to it.
Well duh this is what we have been saying - this is a preprint and is likely to have errors. Whether or not they can be repaired is open to question.
Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem took a long time to go through the review and repair process. And there was at least one pretty hard problem that had to be fixed.
Slashdot's "journalistic" process really suxors when it comes to this sort of stuff.
What puzzles me is why this would be something the Bavarian Parliment would do. I would think this would be done at the national level; US laws that enable wiretaps are all at the Federal level.
What a wonderful irony. After all the complaints by Europeans about the US and its president they end up with somebody WORSE.
LOL.
Hey! I enjoyed my statistical thermodynamics course. I can see though if it isn't taught by somebody good it could a problem. Fortunately the guy I had was good.
Yeah, the French public medical system works so well that 92% of its residents carry supplementary private medical insurance and there are copayments or deductibles ranging from 10-40%. And despite the public oversight it still manages to be the 3rd most expensive system (in terms of % of GDP) in the world.
Heres a couple of others:
Electrochemistry: http://alford.bios.uic.edu/teaching/Nernst.html
Fluid Dynamics: http://mse-092697c.princeton.edu/lecture1001/page3.htm
Einstein dabbled a bit outside theoretical physics. For example he had a patent for a refrigerator design.
If you can wait about 2 days you are pretty safe.
Clorox (Sodium Hypochlorite) is a pretty good general disinfectant. About 3/4 cup in a gallon of water makes a good antiviral wash solution.
Isopropanol works fairly well too.
How so? The whole point of packet-switching networks is that they are neutral to what contents is being transfered over them and from where.
The problem is that real time applications work very poorly in a statistical best-effort packet switched network. There are only two ways to deal with this.
1. Priorities
2. Build out to where capacity always exceeds demand.
Both are expensive. Which is more expensive? That is the big question.
You can watch the commercials without registering your domains there.
Real time traffic is pretty easy to characterize - there is a correlation in terms of the protocols and the traffic type - for example such traffic almost utilizes UDP since TCP error recovery is a waste of time.
Likewise it is pretty easy to profile a large file download over http as being non-interactive.
I'm not saying that such forms of identification are perfect, and there will be a moving target element to the identification, but they already work reasonably well to prioritize VOIP traffic.
It's a basic system design principle to give interactive or real-time processes priority over non-interactive processes. Anything else is nonsense from any sort of usability perspective.
This has to be the most ridiculous article in the history of slashdot.
"Lawrence Roberts is just another guy with the title: 'Inventor of the Internet' in news articles."
That's right, just another guy. Who just happened to be the Program Manager and principle architect for the initial design and construction of ARPAnet.
And did you do all this research at work, on company time?
And did you respond to my posting at work, on company time?
It is actually an American word:
from http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-pop1.htm
OED reminds us, the word is actually American in origin, first turning up there about 1852. The OED is firm in dismissing one often-heard view of its origin, from the Dutch word pappekak for soft faeces. It says firmly "no such word appears to be attested in Dutch" but points to the very similar word poppekak, which appears only in the old set phrase zo fijn als gemalen poppekak, meaning to show excessive religious zeal, but which literally means "as fine as powdered doll shit". The word was presumably taken to the USA by Dutch settlers; the scatological associations were lost when the word moved into the English-language community.
The first half of the word is the Dutch pop for a doll, which may be related to our term of endearment, poppet; the second half is essentially the same as the old English cack for excrement; the verb form of this word is older than the noun, and has been recorded as far back as the fifteenth century.
Despite some uninformed speculation, there's no link with the vulgar meaning of cock. Nor is it linked to the sense of cock for rubbish (as in phrases like that's a load of old cock), as that's a shortened form of cock and bull story, which comes from a fable concerning a bull and a cockerel.
It is also a brand of candied popcorn....
That is NOT guarenteed by any means.
Of course it not guaranteed. But it is well established correlation. Protesting that it is not true is laughable.
So.. you're saying the rich should pay more? Why exactly?
To prevent long-term accumulation of a vast preponderance of wealth in the hands of a small percentage of the population.
Economic disparity is correlated with a wide range of societal problems; in fact I'd put forth the proposition that the basic concepts of human rights are impossible unless there is some reasonable distribution of wealth and economic parity within a society.
You do realize that book is widely considered to be poppycock?