|
Aphrodite posted:They didn't exactly cover why P=NP would break security, but I guess the logic is that if a computer can verify encryption (which it has to do to read encrypted files) in a short time, which they do, then it can also solve/break that encryption in that same short time with the proper equation? no, if P=NP then poo poo like prime factorization can be compute in polynomial time. E.g. if I give you a random number 151263 it's very hard to find its factors. There are various algorithms, but you basically have to run through a bunch of numbers testing each one. On the other hand, if I give the factorization 7^5*3^2 it's very easy for a computer to multiply and check that it works. So if P=NP, you could suddenly factor that integer about as fast as you could multiply it out its prime factorization. Which means that all cryptography, which by construction is looking for those types of problems where going in one direction is exponentially difficult compared to going in the other direction of computation, will be useless. Of course, if P=NP everything would go crazy, we would be effectively from that moment on be living in the loving singularity, since suddenly mathematics itself becomes trivial. If P=NP, we could have computers pushing out proofs to any theorem we wanted, since mathematics itself is NP as well. I don't know of single mathematician that believes P=NP though, so this is basically sci-fi.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Thanks, that's really useful!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:They didn't exactly cover why P=NP would break security, but I guess the logic is that if a computer can verify encryption (which it has to do to read encrypted files) in a short time, which they do, then it can also solve/break that encryption in that same short time with the proper equation? The bit which they glossed over but I suppose explains the killing was that just proving P=NP won't (necessarily) break all encryption - there's no guarantee that the proof will provide a method to solve NP problems fast and efficiently. P=NP proof would spur people to research that though, and THAT would be the end of PKI (there are types of encryption we know of that won't be affected though)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
So all computer encryption will have to go back to that cool decoder wheel that came with Carmen Sandiego games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Or use red gel filters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
On the plus side, we could more easily figure out the ideal path between two arbitrary cities!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:So all computer encryption will have to go back to that cool decoder wheel that came with Carmen Sandiego games. Lenslok for the win! The problem with using P=NP as a plot device is that it's generally accepted that P!=NP. The difficulty is proving it, which is why it's worth a million bucks - proving negatives is very difficult, and of course Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem states that not everything true can be proven.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Well, it's generally accepted that P!=NP with our general method of making iterative algorithms, but it's not known whether, mathematically, there is a better way to solve the problem. I like to believe that some form of chaotic emergent process based on artificial selective evolution might be a better way of solving some of the NP hard problems, but whether it will show that P=NP is really up in the air.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
The whole episode reminds of this. See how far you guys can get into it before your brains curl up and start crying. I didn't make past page one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 05:23
|
|
Finally watched the episode - I liked the additional backstory on Joan, and Sherlock helping her out and bonding with her in a way there at the end. The p=np stuff I knew nothing about so they could have made that whole thing up and I'd never know.  I liked Watson catching the happy hour drinks clue, too. She's getting pretty sharp!
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 08:43
|
|
|
hollylolly posted:Finally watched the episode - I liked the additional backstory on Joan, and Sherlock helping her out and bonding with her in a way there at the end. The p=np stuff I knew nothing about so they could have made that whole thing up and I'd never know. She didn't catch it. She only noticed it after Sherlock dropped the hint that beers were being sold for $2.50.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 10:09
|
|
|
That shot of Sherlock standing in the black-lit room with all the formulas on the wall saying "Maths" needs to be subtitled and stored away in the reaction .gif repository.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 12:16
|
|
|
Jedit posted:She didn't catch it. She only noticed it after Sherlock dropped the hint that beers were being sold for $2.50. That's giving credit in the wrong place. Certainly, Sherlock observed that the beers were being sold for $2.50, and used that for his calculations, but I don't think that he knew the significance of them being $2.50. There's no reason why he should know the price of typical beer in U.S. bars, and several good reasons why he shouldn't know that. Sherlock made the observation, but it was Joan who realized the importance of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 18:56
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:That's giving credit in the wrong place. Certainly, Sherlock observed that the beers were being sold for $2.50, and used that for his calculations, but I don't think that he knew the significance of them being $2.50. There's no reason why he should know the price of typical beer in U.S. bars, and several good reasons why he shouldn't know that. Yes, that's how I remembered it. He did the maths after she observed the four beers for $10. MATHS. 
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
I already miss London. I thought that the whole of season 2 was going to be in Europe, and I am still bummed out this is not the case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
I kind of liked that P=NP was the solution as it was possibly a (weak) reference to the fact that a few Conan Doyle stories are literally impossible given what we know of science now, even though at the time I'm sure they would have seemed plausible to people reading. Conan Doyle himself probably knew better - the Adventure of the Creeping Man being a good example here - but if it was a sort of purposeful wink to his small dalliances into fringe science solutions, I'm a fan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
hollylolly posted:Yes, that's how I remembered it. He did the maths after she observed the four beers for $10. That's precisely backwards. Holmes says that Watson is not going to take his advice about giving the money to the son. He adds that there are better ways to spend $22,000, such as buying 8800 beers. Watson takes it as a joke at first, but then works out that this comes to only $2.50 a beer; Holmes then tells her about the four beers for $10. Watson says that would only happen during happy hour, but the timestamp isn't right for that, and Holmes points out that it's a digital timestamp. So no, Watson doesn't spot it for herself. She just draws all the right conclusions as Holmes nudges her through it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Sophia posted:I kind of liked that P=NP was the solution as it was possibly a (weak) reference to the fact that a few Conan Doyle stories are literally impossible given what we know of science now, even though at the time I'm sure they would have seemed plausible to people reading. Conan Doyle himself probably knew better - the Adventure of the Creeping Man being a good example here - but if it was a sort of purposeful wink to his small dalliances into fringe science solutions, I'm a fan. I think that's a good example of why following ACD's work exactly would be pretty silly. It's better that the references are just flavor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 21:04
|
|
Jedit posted:That's precisely backwards. Holmes says that Watson is not going to take his advice about giving the money to the son. He adds that there are better ways to spend $22,000, such as buying 8800 beers. Watson takes it as a joke at first, but then works out that this comes to only $2.50 a beer; Holmes then tells her about the four beers for $10. Watson says that would only happen during happy hour, but the timestamp isn't right for that, and Holmes points out that it's a digital timestamp. Darn it, all the numbers makes my brain glaze over. 
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
I thought it was odd that the implications of P = NP (invalidating modern cryptography) was a big reveal halfway through the episode. Sherlock should have known that already, and if for some reason he didn’t, it should have come up before the Millennium Prize in any research on the subject. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Jedit posted:That's precisely backwards. Holmes says that Watson is not going to take his advice about giving the money to the son. He adds that there are better ways to spend $22,000, such as buying 8800 beers. Watson takes it as a joke at first, but then works out that this comes to only $2.50 a beer; Holmes then tells her about the four beers for $10. Watson says that would only happen during happy hour, but the timestamp isn't right for that, and Holmes points out that it's a digital timestamp. I don't agree that Holmes knew all along and was poking Watson until she got it. I had the impression from that scene that Holmes was still stuck. Normally, Holmes doesn't try to hide his solutions. I think Holmes simply wasn't aware that beers don't normally cost $2.50. That makes sense, because Holmes isn't exactly the type to hang out at a pub with friends, because he doesn't really have friends. He was in New York for rehab, and while it wasn't alcohol-related rehab, I think that going into bars is discouraged for addicts. There's no real reason why he would have bothered to remember that beers don't cost $2.50. I don't think either of them on their own could have put that together, this was only solved because of both of them. Stabbey_the_Clown fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Oct 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
It's pointed out in an earlier episode that he can't drink right now as part of his process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Horizontal Tree posted:Nice touch, but my immersion was broken by her using something that is downright illegal in New York state. You can look at it as a nod to singlestick though. Oh well, TV, no reason to care. Also, didn't she hit that guy in the head with the baton? Huge no no.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:I think Holmes simply wasn't aware that beers don't normally cost $2.50. He's from London - I suspect he's aware that if beers usually cost $2.50 in New York, there would be considerably more British ex-pats in the place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 11:17
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:He's from London - I suspect he's aware that if beers usually cost $2.50 in New York, there would be considerably more British ex-pats in the place. Yeah, saying that a pint would cost a single quid would have sent up a massive red flag in his head if he's ever gotten drunk in a bar in either the US or UK.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 11:22
|
|
|
pentyne posted:Yeah, saying that a pint would cost a single quid would have sent up a massive red flag in his head if he's ever gotten drunk in a bar in either the US or UK. It'd be £1.50, actually, but the point remains valid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 11:32
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:He's from London - I suspect he's aware that if beers usually cost $2.50 in New York, there would be considerably more British ex-pats in the place. Maybe, maybe not. Remember Sherlock's "attic theory." He might not have considered the normal price of beer to be relevant data and thus never bothered to learn it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
I've been re-watching season one and just got to my favourite reference to the books. In the episode after M, in the beginning when Sherlock is looking at his Moriarty wall, Watson comments on a picture of Napoleon and Sherlock says that he might have been reaching after his fifth night without sleep. Its kind of perfect because while thats how Moriarty is described in the books (the Napoleon of crime, which is written on the picture) it wouldn't make much sense for Sherlock to say that outright (theres probably any number of fictional and real people who would be better suited as a comparison). Its one of the things I love about Elementary, usually its played like a bog standard crime drama that just happens to have Sherlock Holmes in it (barring stuff like the première where there was all that dramatic pause for Mycroft being his brother). I remember reading the synopsis for this show during the summer before it aired and thought I would end up hating it, never would have guessed it being as good as it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:I remember reading the synopsis for this show during the summer before it aired and thought I would end up hating it, never would have guessed it being as good as it is. I felt the same way. I openly mocked the concept for the show when I first heard about it, but now I think I like it more than the UK Sherlock. I'm very happy they've avoided going on the sexual tension between Sherlock and Watson route.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
violetdragon posted:I felt the same way. I openly mocked the concept for the show when I first heard about it, but now I think I like it more than the UK Sherlock. I'm very happy they've avoided going on the sexual tension between Sherlock and Watson route. In truth there's probably more sexual tension between Holmes and Watson on "Sherlock" than there is between Sherlock and Joan in "Elementary."
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 08:31
|
|
|
Even their "moments" on the show somehow never feel romantic. They're moments, between people, not SHAG MEEEEE communicated in eyetalk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Pick posted:Even their "moments" on the show somehow never feel romantic. They're moments, between people, not SHAG MEEEEE communicated in eyetalk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
johntfs posted:In truth there's probably more sexual tension between Holmes and Watson on "Sherlock" than there is between Sherlock and Joan in "Elementary." God yes, and I really like that Elementary is staying far away from any sort of 'sexual tension' between the two leads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
The reason I know that Lucy Liu and Johnny Lee Miller are good actors is that it should be impossible for two people that hot to have no sexual tension with each other. But they do it and I'm glad. It's always one of the first points I make when recommending the show to people. I really hope some of the non-Clyde tertiary characters are making some appearances soon though, like Mrs. Hudson and Alfonso. I've liked the backstory deep-dives but I'm missing that world-building ensemble feel a little.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
I really liked the scene where Sherlock calls Det. Marcus Bell with news of a possible suspect and Bell tells him that they found a second dead guy. "Did I just describe your suspect?" At least they acknowledge that it happens a lot on the show.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 20:45
|
|
Sophia posted:The reason I know that Lucy Liu and Johnny Lee Miller are good actors is that it should be impossible for two people that hot to have no sexual tension with each other. But they do it and I'm glad. It's always one of the first points I make when recommending the show to people. Mrs. Hudson - she isn't listed for any episodes other than the one she's already been in in Season 1.  So she isn't back in the first seven episodes.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Time for people to argue about the internet being referenced in real life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 03:21
|
|
Oh crap, I forgot it was Thursday.  We Are Everyone When Holmes and Watson set out to track down a civil contractor who leaked classified information, their lives are disrupted when they are targeted by the group of cyber-activists protecting him. Meanwhile, Joan takes the advice of a friend and signs up for an online dating service. It's on right now! 
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
Oh boy, Moriarty's messing with his head. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Clyde is back  Also Holmes spending all night arguing with trolls and  on the internet is fantastic.
Gwaihir fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Oct 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 04:13
|
|