6 ms·
Why is there such a strong reaction to this? For the very reasons identified. People want it to be true, without proof, because believing it is true serves a p
by 1arity 11y ago
Why is there such a strong reaction to this?
For the very reasons identified. People want it to be true, without proof, because believing it is true serves a psychological need that provides a fake pay off. It's not "your fault" you didn't make progress in that algorithm, because "the universe" conspired against you and "P != NP", you're off the hook.
Getting off the hook like that is so much easier than facing your own responsibility.
I understand it's very compelling to believe this for that reason, and yet, to do so doesn't work to actually make progress. I understand the psychology. People will fight this to the end to preserve their sense of zero responsibility, to shelter their ego. So much invested, so many layers of justifying narrative, already deposited.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong what you choose to believe. I don't think you need to feel bad about it. You can choose to live your life however you want. If you want to believe P != NP without proof, you're just not someone who is mentally equipped to create innovations in that space. Does that make you bad? No, it's just your choice. You already made that choice. No need to deceive yourself about it. Can you really feel an absence of shame however, trying to talk other people out of it? I guess that is what I am campaigning for.
Believe whatever you want, you've already made your choice. When that young student comes to you, and you try to talk her or him out of pursuing this to preserve the narrative you've already subscribed to yourself, that doesn't work. So if you are aware of how it's your belief, maybe you'll give them space for their belief.
That awareness, and awareness toward others.
- MarkPNeyer 11y agoI spent years working towards a solution, to prove P = NP. I was miserable, isolated and alone - because I was focused on mathematical symbols instead of the people around me. When I started considering that P didn't equal NP, it was the same time that I started thinking about and seriously considering the idea that there was somethign more powerful about groups of people than a single intellect. A single turing machine is like a single mind; a quantum computer is like the thoughts of an entire society. If P = NP, it suggests that smartest guy in the room always wins. If P doesn't equal NP - it means a group can overpower a single smart person. There's a lot of ego in thinking the former.
- 1arity 11y agoI think you found a solution to __your__ problem with P == NP, not a solution to that actual problem. You had a problem with working on this. You found a solution to that. I hear that. The solution you found that worked for you has no bearing on a solution of the problem you abandoned. They say perspective is 80 IQ points. Maybe no one has had the perspective that works on it yet? In any case, if you are going to be someone who solves P == NP, you need to also be someone capable of solving the "you as a person working on P == NP" problem, the meta problem. You got to take care of yourself, so you can take care of the problem. If you don't do one, how can you do the other? The video gamer can't run the marathon until he trains. Even if you have the brain for this, you can't do it until you can sustain your effort. It's like an elite sport.
- MarkPNeyer 11y agoi get that. and to be honest, i haven't ruled out the possibility that P = NP. i just think those who suspect it does have many strong reasons for suspecting it. but then, the michelson-morely experiment was also expected to succeed, and didn't...
- airza 11y ago>Why is there such a strong reaction to this? it's condescending towards the majority intuition with no reasoning about the actual issue whatsoever?
- primitivesuave 11y agoYour vast oversimplification of NP-completeness demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of this topic beneath the surface. There are many sound arguments for P != NP but no mathematically-rigorous proof. This paper is an unsound argument for P = NP. Computer scientists won't be popping champagne if a proof for P = NP or P != NP is found. If P = NP, then the crypto community will have to rethink some of its fundamental assertions. If P != NP, then we can continue along. No respectable computer scientist would ever discourage someone from considering P = NP, but scientific evidence should guide a reasonable hypothesis rather than flowery language. Let me make it clear that I'm not trying to bash your viewpoint, this is more of a general thing you should understand - scientific direction is guided by empirical evidence and not by human beliefs. When you guide scientific intuition with human intuition, then your reasoning is easily misguided by papers like this one, where human intuition takes the place of scientific rigor.