Better yet, a camera with 3d sensing technology that is always on and watching.
Always on and watching? Surely not. I assume the face recognition stuff kicks in when you lift the phone. I'm hopeful that it works well enough that I can essentially just pick up the phone and start using it, even in the dark.
Do you know what "proof" means? I'm giving up on you. It's their problem and their prize. They made the rules. You can't change them just because you want to.
I meant "(already placed queens) aren't too relevant".
Yes, I knew what you meant. But considering that the non-completion problem has a straightforward and known solution, and yet the completion version is the basis for this mathematical prize, I think you are underestimating the relevance of it.
It's a math problem. That's how math works. You have to prove things. Without proofs you're building on a foundation of sand.
I think that you are trying to justify what cannot be justified without wanting to see the actual reality.
I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm trying to explain the problem. You're approaching it from a programming point of view. That's the wrong point of view. The prize is being offered for a mathematical proof, not for an algorithm, no matter how clever it might be.
It was obvious that the problem wasn't the straightforward placing of queens, so I knew I had to look further if I wanted to find out what the actual problem was. Fortunately there was a link in the article so I didn't have to go far. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with an algorithm that usually finds a solution. But that's still not solving the correct problem. You either have to prove that it can be solved in polynomial time or prove that it cannot. An algorithm that "works" is not that, even if you find one that never fails. That's not good enough, you have to prove it.
It's in the linked paper
. I got there from the link in the article.
The new research concerns the n-Queens Completion Problem, where not only is the board larger, but also some queens have already been placed. That is, if some queens have already been placed on the n-by-n board, can you find a solution to the n-Queens puzzle without moving any of those queens?
...
First, as just mentioned, the paper is about the n-Queens Completion problem, not the original n-Queens puzzle. Second, even the discovery of an algorithmic solution to the n-Queens Completion puzzle for all n would not be enough. What would be necessary would be either a proof that there is an algorithm that can solve the n-Queens Completion puzzle in polynomial time, or a proof that no such algorithm exists.”
You're not even solving the right problem. The actual problem is n queens on an n-sized board on which (and here's the important part) some of the queens have already been placed and cannot be moved.
The exact conditions aren't too clear either (e.g., "solve the problem really fast"),
They are clear: "What would be necessary would be either a proof that there is an algorithm that can solve the n-Queens Completion puzzle in polynomial time, or a proof that no such algorithm exists.”
How large is that? Many algorithms for simpler problems would fail if the size is multiplied by a big number.
To slashdot's apparent surprise, once again the article happens to provide the answer. Amazing run of good fortune there.
-- "What would be necessary would be either a proof that there is an algorithm that can solve the n-Queens Completion puzzle in polynomial time, or a proof that no such algorithm exists.”
anything remotely unpositive about Apple gets modded troll very fast.
Try making a thoughtful comment rather than trotting out the same old hackneyed phrases. Sure, you'll still get some rabid fan downmods, but it won't be from me. If you say something constructive or interesting I'll mod it up, even when I don't agree.
It's more likely than the other way around. For many in the Asian world if you asked them what continent America is in they wouldn't know for sure, but it's certain they would know of the country.
Was he trespassing on private property and the owners didn't want him there, perhaps?
Per the article (which perhaps to your surprise can sometimes be a source of information about the topic at hand): "Now, for anyone outside Scotland, there’s something you need to know: You can walk through fields here. It’s not illegal. It’s specifically protected in law, in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. And although not relevant in this case, if there’s a crop then you can still walk in the field, you just have to stay at the edge."
Slashdot Mirror
On average, I suppose, but just off the top of my head I own more than a dozen.
I'm not buying that.
I'm not following you. Maybe you're right, but In what way is privacy being compromised?
Always on and watching? Surely not. I assume the face recognition stuff kicks in when you lift the phone. I'm hopeful that it works well enough that I can essentially just pick up the phone and start using it, even in the dark.
Poor Goofus and Gallant. Working as Walmart greeters now I hear.
The two things are not equivalent.
Do you know what "proof" means? I'm giving up on you. It's their problem and their prize. They made the rules. You can't change them just because you want to.
Because the computers have taken over, and they're waiting for our computers. They don't want to talk to the meat.
No, but that's the way you'd bet.
Amazon doesn't get to make its own laws. Not yet, anyway.
Yes, I knew what you meant. But considering that the non-completion problem has a straightforward and known solution, and yet the completion version is the basis for this mathematical prize, I think you are underestimating the relevance of it.
I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm trying to explain the problem. You're approaching it from a programming point of view. That's the wrong point of view. The prize is being offered for a mathematical proof, not for an algorithm, no matter how clever it might be.
It was obvious that the problem wasn't the straightforward placing of queens, so I knew I had to look further if I wanted to find out what the actual problem was. Fortunately there was a link in the article so I didn't have to go far. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with an algorithm that usually finds a solution. But that's still not solving the correct problem. You either have to prove that it can be solved in polynomial time or prove that it cannot. An algorithm that "works" is not that, even if you find one that never fails. That's not good enough, you have to prove it.
You're not even solving the right problem. The actual problem is n queens on an n-sized board on which (and here's the important part) some of the queens have already been placed and cannot be moved.
They are clear: "What would be necessary would be either a proof that there is an algorithm that can solve the n-Queens Completion puzzle in polynomial time, or a proof that no such algorithm exists.”
To slashdot's apparent surprise, once again the article happens to provide the answer. Amazing run of good fortune there.
-- "What would be necessary would be either a proof that there is an algorithm that can solve the n-Queens Completion puzzle in polynomial time, or a proof that no such algorithm exists.”
that begin in the subject line?
Just because it's a bad bet doesn't mean you won't win it. Some people win the lottery too.
Try making a thoughtful comment rather than trotting out the same old hackneyed phrases. Sure, you'll still get some rabid fan downmods, but it won't be from me. If you say something constructive or interesting I'll mod it up, even when I don't agree.
It's more likely than the other way around. For many in the Asian world if you asked them what continent America is in they wouldn't know for sure, but it's certain they would know of the country.
Per the article (which perhaps to your surprise can sometimes be a source of information about the topic at hand): "Now, for anyone outside Scotland, there’s something you need to know: You can walk through fields here. It’s not illegal. It’s specifically protected in law, in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. And although not relevant in this case, if there’s a crop then you can still walk in the field, you just have to stay at the edge."
And that he thinks "being a dick" is justification enough.
Oh please. It's not like any Samsung products spontaneously burst into flames or anything. What's the worry?
And who did they conquer, and so on? Or are you saying it's conquerors all the way down?