Hacker News: Laakeri

New comment by Laakeri in "Author-paid publication fees corrupt science and should be abandoned"

Laakeri — Sat, 24 Aug 2024 07:33:59 +0000

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/

New comment by Laakeri in "I'm tired of fixing customers' AI generated code"

Laakeri — Thu, 22 Aug 2024 04:23:22 +0000

But he made a good living out of it, so in the end it was a good idea?

New comment by Laakeri in "P vs. NP and the Computational Complexity Zoo (2014) [video]"

Laakeri — Wed, 01 May 2024 03:37:16 +0000

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.

New comment by Laakeri in "P vs. NP and the Computational Complexity Zoo (2014) [video]"

Laakeri — Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:01:23 +0000

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 of such problems I can think of are something like "Finding a clique of size 222222 is in P because we can try all possibilities in n^222222 time".

New comment by Laakeri in "P vs. NP and the Computational Complexity Zoo (2014) [video]"

Laakeri — Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:44:21 +0000

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.

New comment by Laakeri in "Students’ insight proves that the local-global conjecture doesn’t hold"

Laakeri — Thu, 10 Aug 2023 16:40:27 +0000

"Luck favors the prepared mind"

New comment by Laakeri in "Problems harder than NP-Complete"

Laakeri — Thu, 11 May 2023 23:34:54 +0000

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.

New comment by Laakeri in "Science is a strong-link problem"

Laakeri — Fri, 28 Apr 2023 05:43:12 +0000

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 answer, and explain the universe much better with some alternative theory. In your comment you assume that science is more or less settled, and all there is to do is to tweak the present understanding a bit and fill some gaps. The same sentiment was shared by many prominent physicists already in the end of 1800s, who were obviously proved wrong by Einstein and others in the 1900s.

New comment by Laakeri in "Sorting algorithms that don’t hate you"

Laakeri — Mon, 16 Jan 2023 08:51:29 +0000

It's enough to just take one random element and use it as a pivot.

New comment by Laakeri in "What Is a Wildcard Person?"

Laakeri — Wed, 28 Dec 2022 09:58:04 +0000

For example Google hires mostly generalists and lots of people who care about income and career progression work there.

New comment by Laakeri in "Football shirts chart the rise and fall of tech giants"

Laakeri — Sun, 03 Jul 2022 10:54:15 +0000

Red Bull is not a sponsor but the owner of the team

New comment by Laakeri in "Graduate Student’s Side Project Proves Prime Number Conjecture"

Laakeri — Mon, 06 Jun 2022 18:58:08 +0000

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.

New comment by Laakeri in "Donald Knuth on work habits, problem solving, and happiness (2020)"

Laakeri — Mon, 23 May 2022 20:49:21 +0000

I don't know, he was a co-founder of computer science.

New comment by Laakeri in "Reading academic computer science papers"

Laakeri — Fri, 08 Apr 2022 03:28:02 +0000

arxiv.org

New comment by Laakeri in "Quantum computing hype is bad for science"

Laakeri — Thu, 22 Jul 2021 21:46:55 +0000

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 runtime of classical exact algorithm -- obviously apples vs oranges.

New comment by Laakeri in "Hacking Bitcoin wallets with quantum computers could happen"

Laakeri — Mon, 14 Jun 2021 06:53:28 +0000

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 competitors.

New comment by Laakeri in "List of Emerging Technologies"

Laakeri — Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:44:46 +0000

Quantum computing is a prime example of a technology in phase 2, definitely not in "commercialization".

New comment by Laakeri in "Calc.exe is now open source; there’s surprising depth in its ancient code (2019)"

Laakeri — Thu, 25 Mar 2021 13:26:48 +0000

You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.

New comment by Laakeri in "New Alan Turing £50 note design is revealed"

Laakeri — Thu, 25 Mar 2021 11:41:01 +0000

I think you could anyway get it from eBay with quite small overhead.

New comment by Laakeri in "Did Schnorr destroy RSA? Show me the factors"

Laakeri — Wed, 03 Mar 2021 21:48:21 +0000

>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 quantum computation requires an exponential amount of energy in the number of qubits. (Though it should be noted that quantum mechanics predicts that this will not happen.)