kamilner

>Re: P != NP, I would say that question assumes a certain architecture, so while it might hold for Turing machines, the real question is is a HyperTuring/Turing machine really all there is?

No, P and NP are defined by an architecture, there's nothing to assume about it. E.g., P is defined as "problems solvable in polynomial time on a deterministic Turing machine".

Why isn't it possible (or likely, even) that the difficulty of constructing capacity X+1 grows faster than the +1 capacity? Self-improvement would slow exponentially when it takes three times the resources/computation/whatever to construct something that's twice as good at self-improving, for example.

I'm one of the authors, happy to see this on HN. Just to let everyone know we're currently in the process of updating the paper and implementation, so there will be a more detailed version up in a couple weeks.

There's also an independent implementation in Go here[0] though I don't know how complete it is.

[0] https://github.com/bifurcation/treekeys

The D-Wave machine is not a full adiabatic quantum computer, though (which would be polynomially equivalent to a universal quantum computer). It does quantum annealing over a pretty restricted set of Hamiltonians.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to say it is not a quantum computer, in the same way that not everything performing computation is called a computer. Otherwise---taken to the absurd---why not call a chemist's beaker a quantum computer?

I'm not sure what about this thread precipitated this comment, but it sounds like you'll be relieved to discover he doesn't think that.

There are quite a few other tools for protocol verification (ProVerif, Maude-NPA, etc.) and I haven't used all of them myself, but I think Tamarin is particularly easy to read and understand even when starting out. The rules are roughly written in terms of inputs to outputs along with some labels to refer to what happened, and the properties are essentially just plain first-order logic. (Disclaimer: I'm biased, I've worked with Tamarin more than other tools and also contributed some to its codebase.)

Also I think part of the power in using Tamarin is that if it's having trouble proving something automatically, it's easy to jump in and try to prove it manually with a relatively straightforward graphical representation of the trace sets. That also helps you spot any potential interim properties you might need to prove as helper lemmas, etc.

It's gotten some recent popularity for the work on TLS 1.3 as well [0], and with that an effort to improve the materials available for people to pick it up themselves [1, 2]. Some of the things we did to nudge Tamarin's heuristic in the right direction when autoproving the WireGuard model (documented in the .m4 file) are getting baked in to Tamarin soon.

(For what it's worth, you don't actually have to deal with any Haskell unless you're planning on modifying the prover, the protocol models are in their own language.)

[0] https://tls13tamarin.github.io/TLS13Tamarin/ [1] https://github.com/tamarin-prover/teaching [2] https://tamarin-prover.github.io/manual/book/001_introductio...

As far as I know only Android >=7 on hardware with a HWC 2 implementation support colour transforms [0], so all Android apps implementing a f.lux-style thing do exactly that, draw an orange rectangle over the screen.

F.lux on desktop has always worked that way though, I think. It should essentially be rendering the blue component substantially darker (up to removing it, depending on the temperature setting), instead of alpha blending with orange.

[0] https://source.android.com/devices/tech/display/night-light....

> I also miss having a (Android) back button on my phone.

I find I much prefer the swipe from the left to go back, it feels a lot more natural.

> Funny that, does Apple allow push notifications without telling APNS about the notification message yet?

Yes, of course they do. That's what remote-notification UIBackgroundMode is for. How did you think encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal showed message previews?

If it's under warranty, that's worth taking in. When I got my MBP repaired under warranty they also noticed my battery was doing worse than it should for the number of cycles and replaced it no questions without me having to ask. I believe rated is 80% health after 1000 cycles, and mine was somewhere around 75% after 8 or 900---you can check the these values in system information, I believe.

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, if provided with a random oracle A, P^A != NP^A with probability 1. It's not clear though what this actually buys you, intuition wise, since it's already sort of intuitively clear that nondeterministic oracle queries are much more powerful (then again, I guess you could say the same about nondeterministic computing...)

http://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/0210008

Edit: For those who are interested, the oracle separation gives you one of the few properties we can prove about the nature of any proof of P ?= NP, that it must be 'non-relativizing'. We know a few other properties of any possible proof, described here: http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/alg.pdf

That seems odd, Electronic Arts alone has a market cap of ~23.5B: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/EA/key-statistics?ltr=1

Did you have something specific in mind? Otherwise as I read your comment I should mention the 'recognizability' of the information is irrelevant to the paper. The paradox is about the differing predictions from general relativity and quantum mechanics, one of which implies that the information is lost and the other of which implies that the information is not (the form it takes is not important).

Are you sure it isn't because you claimed the article cherrypicked results by not including a phone that was, in fact, included in all but one graph, and then justified your misplaced criticism based on the omitted phone having faster storage -- even though the phone in question was specifically included in the storage benchmarks?

Quantum Computing Since Democritus, by Scott Aaronson. It covers an astounding amount of stuff -- including complexity theory, the nature of randomness and information, and quantum information theory -- into less than 400 pages.

I found a list at http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/05/apples-i...

"Smartflash's lawsuit filing includes the following list of patents that they're claiming Apple has infringed upon: 7,334,720, 7,942,317, 8,033,458, 8,061,598, 8,118,221 and 8,336,772. All of the patents are respectively entitled "Data Storage and Access Systems.""

I would disagree with you there, actually. As Scott Aaronson says: "Quantum mechanics is what you would inevitably come up with if you started from probability theory, and then said, let's try to generalize it [...] As such, the theory could have been invented by mathematicians in the 19th century without any input from experiment. It wasn't, but it could have been.

[...]

In this lecture, I'm going to try to convince you -- without any recourse to experiment -- that quantum mechanics would also have been on God's whiteboard. I'm going to show you why, if you want a universe with certain very generic properties, you seem forced to one of three choices: (1) determinism, (2) classical probabilities, or (3) quantum mechanics. Even if the "mystery" of quantum mechanics can never be banished entirely, you might be surprised by just how far people could've gotten without leaving their armchairs! That they didn't get far until atomic spectra and so on forced the theory down their throats is one of the strongest arguments I know for experiments being necessary."

http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html