HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

aleph_minus_one

4,929 karma · joined February 14, 2023

submissionscomments
aleph_minus_one··on Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample
> I'm convinced half the reason people find CS terminology more accessible and Math terminology less so, is that CS terminology tends to be named after stuff, and Math terminology tends to be named after people, and ... sometimes whether the place they lived is a tropical place.

In my opinion: a lot of math terminology is much older than computer science terminology, so the origin of the names of many concepts in math is much more obscure for today's people than CS terminology currently is (and least if you are not into history of science/math).

On the other hand, in my observation a lot more terms in computer science are based on obscure (often pop-cultural) puns. I guess in 50-100 years these CS terminology might seem even more obscure for then-contemporary people than math terminology is today.

aleph_minus_one··on Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample
Rings:

* Determinant calculation:

- The Samuelson–Berkowitz algorithm is best understood in terms of general rings

- The Faddeev–LeVerrier algorithm and determinant calculation using Gaussian elimination work on rings with specific properties (for the Faddeev–LeVerrier algorithm the restriction is on the characteristic of the ring, for Gaussian elimination the ring must be an integral domain (ideally a field)).

* Ring-learning with errors (for post-quantum cryptography and homomorphic cryptography). Here, a specific ring is the central object.

* Number-Theoretic Transform (NTT): Basically a generalization of the Fourier Transform to the ring Z_n. Important for arbitrary-precision integer arithmetic

* Chinese Remainder Theorem. Often only formulated for the ring Z, but it can be generalized to larger classes of rings. Used for example in Shamir’s scheme for secret sharing (cryptography)

* The theory of BCH and Reed-Solomon codes uses a specific ring

* The AKS Primality Test (a really deep result in computational number theory) uses the ring Z_n[X]/(x^r-1).

---

Algebras:

Very often, a ring is constructed from another ring. Examples:

* the polynomial ring R[X_1, ..., X_n]

* The ring of (square) matrices over a ring R

So, using algebras in algorithms often means: "we want to make use use of this additional structure that our (more sophisticated) ring has)". (Associative) R-algebras formalize this concept of "ring with additional structure".

To just give one algorithm for polynomials:

* Buchberger algorithm for computing a Gröbner basis

Other examples:

* Clifford algebras for a lot of geometric problems (special case: quaternions (a 4-dimensional \mathbb{R}-algebra) for rotations in \mathbb{R}^3).

* If you are willing to also consider semi-rings (in this case: tropical semi-rings): the Floyd-Warshall algorithm for finding shortest paths and the Viterbi algorithm for finding the most likely sequence of states in a Hidden-Markov Model (HMM) can very elegantly formulated using the matrix semiring over the tropical semiring.

aleph_minus_one··on Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample
> I was amused and irritated in equal measure when a senior manager at $LAST_JOB demanded that documents include "no jargon", then went on to use many terms like those you've listed here with no indication of awareness of the contradiction.

"No jargon" is alwys in reference to some assumed knowledge model.

For example, when I claim that my own math texts include "no jargon", this assumes the knowledge of a person who has studied, say, mathematics, physics or computer science.

aleph_minus_one··on Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample
> But... what is a ring? What is a formal variable? What is a vector space? What does "algebra over the ring" mean?

All these terms were taught to computer science (and of course math, physics, ...) students as part of getting their degree in computer science, because these concepts are important for many algorithms.

aleph_minus_one··on Claude Fable produced a counterexample to the Jacobian Conjecture
This assumes that you already have Sage installed, and you have some working knowledge in using Sage.
aleph_minus_one··on Claude Fable produced a counterexample to the Jacobian Conjecture
> The Collatz conjecture is almost certainly not false, so no "clean up" is possible.

Many people believed the same about the Jacobian Conjecture.

aleph_minus_one··on AI Meets Cryptography 2: What AI Found in OpenVM's ZkVM
This article is part 2 of a series. The first part is

> AI meets Cryptography 1: What AI Found in Cloudflare's CIRCL

> https://blog.zksecurity.xyz/posts/circl-bugs/

aleph_minus_one··on How RCA Victor sold Sound Service to classrooms in 1939
> Electric cars were invented before gas ones and still don't dominate in most countries, maybe only one?

Even before electric cars got more common, basically everybody knew what an electric car is.

aleph_minus_one··on At least 105 past YC founders have worked at OpenAI and Anthropic
> Ah, then my second wish will be for everyone to want the common good.

People have very different, often contradictory opinions what the "common good" is.

I would even claim that this question is a special case of the millennia-old philosophical problem of defining what "good" actually means (i.e. defining ethics), which has resulted in myriads of different opinions:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_ethics

aleph_minus_one··on At least 105 past YC founders have worked at OpenAI and Anthropic
> too many smart people were building out social networks and similar services trying to maximize ad impressions.

Honest question: where should these very smart people work then in your opinion? Nearly all suitable-looking, "smarter" ideas that come to my mind will bring less revenue/profit in expectation than, for example, letting them maximize ad impressions.

I of course wish we lived in a "more intelligent" world where this is not the case. :-(

aleph_minus_one··on Never argue with your boss (2009)
> Either the boss wants to hear your opinion or they don't. You need to look at body language, tone and wording to decide.

Not everybody is adept at interpreting such subtle signs. A particular problem is when bosses say things like "Your opinion is appreciated.", "I value honest feedback.", blabla, but give different body signs.

In my opinion, this problem is less marked in Germany than the USA, because people tend to use of such sugar-coated lies much less in Germany.

aleph_minus_one··on Never argue with your boss (2009)
> In a great display of irony, these comments are arguing hard and publicly against the conclusion

There is no boss involved in the HN discussion. :-)

aleph_minus_one··on Never argue with your boss (2009)
> I've worked in multinationals and I've noticed that in the US ( east coast in particular ) it's much more hierarchical - where arguing with your boss in public could be a firing offence.

> This is less so in Europe.

On the other hand, in big German companies there often exist more hierarchy levels. In this sense, I would rather call German companies more hierarchical.

The difference is (also from your description) rather that in the USA, bosses often expect their underlings to be much more "ideologically aligned" to the their principles [1], which they often don't state/disclose from beginning. Enforcing such an ideological alignment is much less accepted in big German companies (at least in the lower hierarchical levels).

---

[1] In German, there exists the word "[die] Linientreue" for this, which can literally translated to "line loyalty". Dictionaries give the translation "true to party principles", but I would claim that this "politically connotated" translation is rather restrictive.

aleph_minus_one··on Never argue with your boss (2009)
> You should generally never argue with authorities publically. It never ends well. Perhaps some free speech fanatics mean otherwise, but free speech doesn’t really exist.

This is not so much about free speech (because if it was, the problem wouldn't exist so much in countries that have a different concept of free speech from the USA), but rather that a scientific education strongly nudges you into becoming a "truth-seeker", and in pursuit of this argue for your point.

This is why in particular geeks/nerds love to argue with their boss when they believe he isn't correct.

So, I rather fault employees that they look for employees with a university degree, while in reality they want employees that don't want to start scientific disputes with their boss ( exactly what the scientific education at a university drills you towards).

---

Addendum: In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48918117 silentmafia writes down a related observation:

> In academia arguing is sort of your job, or at least part of it.

aleph_minus_one··on The Tower Keeps Rising
I have another thought on this:

At least in the past (before LLM-based code contributions got socially acceptable in some circles), in open-source project you often got very direct comments on code that was of bad quality. Yes, this was always a little bit abrasive, but it did a lot for the code quality.

For internal applications used at companies, such an abrasive behaviour is typically not accepted ("not a team player" (as if this is something bad), offended snowflakes, "not socially adept" etc.). Thus the code quality suffers quite a lot for internal applications.

Have you ever thought why salespeople have such an easy time selling some LLM for coding to big companies? Because the code quality of many internal applications is so bad, which makes even shitty LLM slop code often better than what is there.

aleph_minus_one··on The Tower Keeps Rising
> if you can’t design a modular monolith, you can’t design a set of microservices.

I somewhat disagree:

Yes, it is possible to design a modular monolith, but thinking about the system in terms of a "minimum viable service" (but keep an eye on "viable", otherwise you can easily get into the "interaction problem") makes it much easier.

This is very similar to how you can write programs with no implicit state in a imperative programming language, but doing this in a pure functional programming language such as Haskell is much easier.

aleph_minus_one··on The console wars have been lost
> I've never written for such a system, but I'd assume that a somewhat close analogy would be a single core Linux computer with 10 microcontrollers attached. (Though I'd love to hear from someone with more knowledge whether this is a reasonable analogy.)

Where this otherwise good analogy basically lacks is that the SPEs of a Cell were really fast (in opposite to microcontrollers), so a better analogy could be: a single core computer that has 7 ultra-fast, identical DSPs attached, of which you can use 6. [1]

---

[1] For the 7 available and 6 usable SPEs, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cell_(processor)&...

aleph_minus_one··on Samsung Health app threatens data deletion if users opt out AI training
Where is the catch? You rather get two good things if you don't agree:

- Samsung deletes your sensitive health data

- Samsung does not use this data to train some AI

:-)

aleph_minus_one··on The console wars have been lost
> There's really no reason console games of that era needed, or even could benefit from 6 cores

First: One problem of the PS3 was that in a late stage of its development a (rather weak) GPU was "tacked on" (originally, the Cell was supposed to replace the GPU).

Now for your point:

Just have a look what scientists did on PS3 clusters using the SPUs of the Cell, and considering this imagine what creative things would have been possible for games on the PS3.

The problem was that at this time, game development got much less specific to one platform (in opposite to how it was for basically all the previous game console generations, though I am willing to admit that the original Xbox being very similar to a PC did give a hint concerning the direction the game industry was heading), so you wanted a much more "standardized" (typically meaning: similar to PC) architecture. The Xbox 360 was simply much more similar to PCs, so it was much easier to port engines from one platform to another.

> the people I've talked to who have worked for it said the architecture was a nightmare to work with.

For previous console generations this was less of a problem (basically every console was quirky). It is easy to find statements of developers on the internet how the PS2 was magnitudes more of a nightmare to develop for than the PS3.

So, before, being difficult to develop for a console was much more accepted in consideration of the unique features each console brought to the table. What did change was rather the expectation among developers to be able to easily port engines between platforms.

aleph_minus_one··on Why write code in 2026
The reason the evolution of cars has slowed down so much is mostly regulatory compliance.

With the current ongoing revolution in home manufacturing (starting with 3D printing; currently there is a lot of work done in home CNC machining), it would be easily possible to get a huge leap towards "print your own car".

The reason why you see nothing of this is basically red tape.

aleph_minus_one··on Why write code in 2026
> This gives "let's close the patent office"

This is a really good idea for completely different reasons. :-)

aleph_minus_one··on Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid
> But does it take 3 years or 4 years to get the engineering degree, after completing vocational training?

You will have the ordinary amount of time at the university.

As I wrote: the time that you save is getting "(fachgebundenes) Abitur" via evening school, which was historically necessary. So you do save time, just not during attending the university.

In the vocational training, one learns practical skills, while the university is there to teach you the theoretical grounding. So, basically nothing that you learned in your vocational training transfers to university. There is a reason why vocational training vs university were historically two completely different and separated kinds of tertiary education.

aleph_minus_one··on Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid
> I was surprised that Germany doesn't offer a similar pathway to a Bachelors in Engineering for its vocational program students.

Germany does, though in a different way:

Normally, to study, you need an Abitur (Allgemeine Hochschulreife) high school diploma from your school [1] to study at a university (Hauptschulabschluss or mittlere Reife (these kinds of high school diplomas are hard to translate into English)).

Recently, it has become possible that if you got your vocal training in a technical area and have work practice, you can also study for an engineering degree without gettting Abitur via an evening school.

[1] There exist exceptions like Fachhochschulereife oder fachgebundenes Abitur, but let's not complicate things.

aleph_minus_one··on Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid
> How many university (liberal arts even) educated Americans have read the Federalist Papers? The Declaration of Independence? The Constitution?

To give a counterpoint:

C. P. Snow. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures (overview)

> https://web.archive.org/web/20170508085255/https://www.rbkc....

aleph_minus_one··on Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid
> Anything that spills over from that can be jobs, industry, innovations and all that.

Most companies are not interested in applying the trove of knowledge that graduates have even for the company's own economic advantage.

aleph_minus_one··on Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid
> The only people doing degrees for knowledge and prestige are the filthy rich and while they may make up a significant percentage of students at the top 5 schools, they make up a tiny percentage of all college students.

I already wrote it quite some times on HN: at least in Germany, where university is rather cheap, the situation is typically different:

- The really rich kids will typically have a "career on rails", for example because of family connections. They thus often consider getting the university degree as an annoying obstacle on their way towards a certain career.

- If you, on the other hand, don't come from a wealthy background, you better are very idealistic with respect to your chosen degree course (with the only typical constraint that it will not be not be some "useless degree" (including what is called in German "Orchideenfächer" (i.e. small, obscure degree courses for which there is often no real job market))). If you are not in deep love with the subject that you study, family and friends will likely "suggest" that you should drop out of university and get a form of tertiary education that is a better fit for you, such as Fachhochschule, Berufsakademie (both offer a much more applied tertiary education than universities do) or Ausbildung (vocational training).

TLDR: In Germany, typically not the rich kids get a university degree for their seek of knowledge (the rich kid rather often consider attending university as an annoying obstacle on their certain career), but rather the smart, idealistic kids from a less well-off family background.

aleph_minus_one··on Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid
> If knowledge and prestige is all that matters, then don't take the loan, take the scenic route, get your degree slowly as and when you have the time and money, and one day you will have something to look back at.

I think there is a middle ground: If knowledge (and prestige) is what matters, you avoid taking a loan. But even if you take no or a very small loan, it does not mean that you can afford to go the scenic route and get the degree slowly.

aleph_minus_one··on AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence
> Lol at George thinking _they_ are gonna let you run your own model.

Of course "they" won't let you. The questions that one should rather ask for oneself are:

- How much are you willing to fight for this?

- How much are you willing to nevertheless run your own model, ignoring the laws and regulations?

aleph_minus_one··on Why skilled workers come to Germany and then leave again
Typically the pay does increase over the years, but depending on the company, the increase can be slow (but the details depend on the specific company).
aleph_minus_one··on FAANG Simulator
> Most people didn’t go to college to eat canned beans. We went to college so we could stop eating canned beans.

Dreaming of something does not make it real.

Even in Germany, where going to university is very cheap, people have such dreams of social ascent by getting a degree. Here is a German article about how this does not always go well:

> https://www.blaetter.de/ausgabe/2016/august/exzellente-entqu...

> https://archiv.telepolis.de/features/Exzellente-Entqualifizi...

← PreviousPage 8 of 34Next →