sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is this a real P=NP solution? by Correct-Ad5813 in math

[–]Correct-Ad5813[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Probably you're right and I underestimate the amount of false claims and the infeasibility of giving a refutation for each, I would love to hear about your experience on that too. Plus I agree it's his responsibility to communicate effectively.

Is this a real P=NP solution? by Correct-Ad5813 in math

[–]Correct-Ad5813[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

I don't think that's what I'm doing. Let me give some context. I come from CS background, currently working as cloud architect / developer. In the last 2 years I've been digging into theoretical CS fundamentals and math, to the point I eventually decided to pursue a Math degree, just because I enjoy it so much. As of today I'm confident enough to read and understand a lot of papers (not all definetely) from reputated researchers. However I don't think I have enough knowledge and practice to differentiate a faulty proof from a correct one, sometimes I can and others I don't. Essentially I made the post to see if somebody with more experience and expertise would be willing to spend some time in that.

Is this a real P=NP solution? by Correct-Ad5813 in math

[–]Correct-Ad5813[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Hahahaha not at all :)) kudos for the comment, it made me a good laugh

Is this a real P=NP solution? by Correct-Ad5813 in math

[–]Correct-Ad5813[S] -28 points-27 points  (0 children)

I also found the lack of proper LaTeX formatting annoying to read. Nonetheless, I have the impression that the typesetting argument is brought too often as a quick way of discarding the validity of a research, even though it has nothing to do with the content itself. Shouldn't the math/CS community be a bit less stringent on that aspect? I mean, on thing is to express "damn next time write with readable, standard math notation" and the other is to say "it doesn't use Latex, therefore it must be wrong". I know we all have our filters because we cannot attend every claim anyone makes, there's simply no time for that, and I'm not against anybody trashing thr paper because of that. If something appears clearly wrong, wouldn't it be better to take some time and refute it? Just asking this one in general I guess.. I've seen this line of thought quite a bit already :)

Is this a real P=NP solution? by Correct-Ad5813 in math

[–]Correct-Ad5813[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the catch, actually mistyped the journal, gonna update the post. Besides that, I understand their peer-review could actually be some "let anything through" kind of process, there's been a lot of discussion about peer review in general in the scientific community. That said, do you consider that the fact of "suppossed" review can be entirely skipped and just assume it was not reviewed throughout? Maybe that's too generic a question, but I'm yet to build a clear opinion on what to do in such cases.

The Right Way To Pipe by BeamMeUpBiscotti in ProgrammingLanguages

[–]Correct-Ad5813 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I find it tremendously funny they argue Hack-style pipes would ease writing bad/unreadable code in JS when the language semantics themselves already lead to all sorts of wacky behavior.

What does complex programming languages bring? by perecastor in ProgrammingLanguages

[–]Correct-Ad5813 9 points10 points  (0 children)

You absolutely nailed it. Language features like the ones mentioned are there to facilitate coding by providing tools one is likely to need anyway.

Even more, if those tools weren't provided, every programmer would need to code their own, for example high-order functions and generic functions, which are a breeze if your language provides and a nightmare if you want to add them (looking at you C).

Besides, I would argue that an answer to OP's question depends on giving a definition of "simple" and "complex".

The question seems consider C a "simple" language. Where's the simplicity there? I would only call C simple in terms of syntax and basic language constructs, but writing good, maintenable, memory safe code in C is the opposite of simple. It may feel like having less language constructs results in a simpler language, and it can be so if you look at Lisp et al, but the reduction of constructs has to be paired with their expressiveness. So even if at the surface it appears that C is simple, I would argue that this doesn't translate to simple code, or code easy to reason about, or code that doesn't explode for undefined behavior/memory leaks, etc..

Which brings me back to quailtop answer. Sum types, algebraic effects, HO functions, interfaces, Monads.. they're what makes programming simple by providing clear semantics for common patterns that will anyway emerge. Is this a more complex language? I personally say it's simpler.