Laakeri

5 ms·

1.
by Laakeri 2y ago
There are such things, they are called "arxiv overlay journals". Couple of examples from my research area: https://www.advancesincombinatorics.com/ , https://theoretics.episciences.org/
2.
by Laakeri 2y ago
But he made a good living out of it, so in the end it was a good idea?
3.
by Laakeri 2y ago
I completely agree with you. My point was that the P vs NP distinction matters in practice, but of course also the subquadratic vs quadratic time distinction matters a lot.
4.
by Laakeri 2y ago
What are examples of natural graph related problems in P with absurd exponents? I think the reason they don't get attention is not that the algorithms are not practical, but that the problems are not natural. Really, the only examples
5.
by Laakeri 2y ago
I'm not sure if its really misunderstanding, when in 99% cases it has turned out that if a problem is in P, then it has a polynomial-time algorithm with a quite small exponent.
6.
by Laakeri 3y ago
"Luck favors the prepared mind"
7.
by Laakeri 3y ago
For binary-encoded input it is in 2-EXPTIME by trying all graphs of size exponential in the input number and testing all subsets of the given size. Would be surprising if any hardness result for complexity classes would be known.
8.
by Laakeri 3y ago
I read the essay, and my takeaway to "There are for example four fundamental forces. Are we going to find another four?" would be: Maybe not, but we could find out that the model of fundamental forces wasn't really the final
9.
by Laakeri 4y ago
It's enough to just take one random element and use it as a pivot.
10.
by Laakeri 4y ago
For example Google hires mostly generalists and lots of people who care about income and career progression work there.
11.
by Laakeri 4y ago
Red Bull is not a sponsor but the owner of the team
12.
by Laakeri 4y ago
Well, it is also not proved to not be NP-hard, so it could also be NP-hard to our current knowledge. But you are right that researchers believe that it's not NP-hard.
13.
by Laakeri 4y ago
I don't know, he was a co-founder of computer science.
14.
by Laakeri 4y ago
arxiv.org
15.
by Laakeri 5y ago
Is there some fair comparison of D-Wave annealer vs classical methods on optimization problems? I remember seeing papers where it was compared to some naive methods or the runtime of D-Wave approximation algorithm was compared to the runtim
16.
by Laakeri 5y ago
The sycamore is really on the border of what current classical methods can simulate. You also need to consider that the funding used for building sycamore was probably orders of magnitudes larger than the funding used to build classical com
17.
by Laakeri 5y ago
Quantum computing is a prime example of a technology in phase 2, definitely not in "commercialization".
18.
by Laakeri 5y ago
You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.
19.
by Laakeri 5y ago
I think you could anyway get it from eBay with quite small overhead.
20.
by Laakeri 6y ago
>There's no real big theoretical problems in the quantum computer building space The current quantum computers are just on the edge of what we can simulate classically, so we can't yet rule out the possibility that realizing a
21.
by Laakeri 6y ago
I think by Theorem 4.2 in https://math.dartmouth.edu/~pw/math100w13/haddadan.pdf the number of such shuffles required to have a positive probability on all permutations is 6.
22.
by Laakeri 6y ago
To me, the Jeff Dean's email sounds like this paper failed to cite some research and as a result made Google look less good than Google actually is. This sounds like somewhat minor academic mistake, but at the same time a major PR mist
23.
by Laakeri 6y ago
One useful piece of advice that I have received is that there are tradeoffs in giving shit at work. This article mentions downsides of not giving a shit, but doesn't mention downsides of giving too much shit, that is, getting too emoti
24.
by Laakeri 6y ago
Ah, that explains it perfectly!
25.
by Laakeri 6y ago
Most research is government funded
26.
by Laakeri 6y ago
All Turing-complete programming languages/models of computation can simulate each other with polynomial overhead. What I think is weird is that the article specifically mentions that programming languages are built on single tape Turin
27.
by Laakeri 6y ago
Oh, that's nice, I didn't know that! How big is your office? What I know is that Google does not hire software engineers in Helsinki. They have a small office, but it is only for sales people. Edit: Also by https://www.
28.
by Laakeri 6y ago
>Further, it has been exacerbated by recent computing mechanisms, such as multithreading, NUMA, GPGPU, and distributed computing, which have moved away from the "single tape" Turing Machine model of computation that most progra
29.
by Laakeri 6y ago
Yeah, many people from Helsinki who are good enough to get a job at Amazon/Google/etc are actually moving abroad to work for them, so it doesn't make sense to move to Helsinki if you could get a job like that. Though there ar
30.
by Laakeri 6y ago
This is just life in general. Some people get funding/support for their own ideas and some people do not. I don't think it is specific to academia.

More ›