Nice article in the New Yorker about how obesity is a bonafide disease and not simply a matter of willpower.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 10, 2013, at 7:02 PM, "firdaus.janoos" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Monday, August 26, 2013
In this day and age for a nation to have an official body to investigate and prosecute witchcraft and sorcery would be a cause for comedy if only it were not an excuse to perpetuate the criminal stupidity of its people.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Monday, May 13, 2013
From: CSAIL Event Calendar <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:49 PM
Subject: TALK:Thursday 5-16-13 Succinct Non-Interactive Arguments via Linear Interactive Proofs
Succinct Non-Interactive Arguments via Linear Interactive Proofs
CIS Seminars 2012/2013
Speaker: Alessandro Chiesa
Speaker Affiliation: MIT
Host: CIS Seminar
Time: 10:30 AM - 12:00 PM
Succinct non-interactive arguments (SNARGs) enable verifying NP statements
with lower complexity than required for classical NP verification.
Traditionally, the focus has been on minimizing the length of such arguments;
nowadays researchers have focused also on minimizing verification time, by
drawing motivation from the problem of delegating computation.
A common relaxation is a preprocessing SNARG, which allows the verifier to
conduct an expensive offline phase that is independent of the statement to be
proven later. Recent constructions of preprocessing SNARGs have achieved
attractive features: they are publicly-verifiable, proofs consist of only O(1)
encrypted (or encoded) field elements, and verification is via arithmetic
circuits of size linear in the NP statement. Additionally, these constructions
seem to have "escaped the hegemony" of probabilistically-checkable proofs
(PCPs) as a basic building block of succinct arguments.
We present a general methodology for the construction of preprocessing
SNARGs, as well as resulting concrete efficiency improvements. Our results are
achieved by studying a natural extension of the interactive proof model that
considers algebraically-bounded provers; this new setting is analogous to the
common study of algebraically-bounded "adversaries" in other fields, such
as pseudorandomness and randomness extraction. More concretely, in this work
we focus on linear (or affine) provers, and provide several constructions of
(succinct two-message) linear-interactive proofs (LIPs) for NP. We then show
how to generically compile LIPs into preprocessing SNARGs.
Joint work with Nir Bitansky, Yuval Ishai, Rafail Ostrovsky, and Omer Paneth.
For more information please contact: Holly A Jones, 617-253-6098, firstname.lastname@example.org
Seminars mailing list
Sunday, May 05, 2013
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shantanu Singh
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Vebjorn Ljosa
> Subject: Re: Fun weekend read
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Shantanu Singh wrote:
> > http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/a-most-profound-math-problem.html
> If P = NP, the geeksta rappers will need to come up with some new
> > Yo, MC Plus Plus, my rhymes are so phat, I'm PSPACE-complete but I'll
> > reduce you to 3-SAT.
> > My crew is so hard that we roll in NP, … With more power than
> > multitape Turing Machines.
> > Blowin' up the rap scene faster than factorial functions, I'm dope
> > like PNP transistors and I'll saturate your junctions.
> > By the time you've rhymed one line, I've already busted ten; You rap
> > in exponential time and I'm big-O of log(n).
You know you're reading the New Yorker when there's a name-drop of David Foster Wallace even in an article on P=?NP. These litterateurs ... sigh.
"A few of the Clay problems are long-standing head-scratchers. The Riemann hypothesis, for example, made its debut in 1859. By contrast, P versus NP is relatively young, having been introduced by the University of Toronto mathematical theorist Stephen Cook in 1971, in a paper titled “The complexity of theorem-proving procedures,” though it had been touched upon two decades earlier in a letter by Kurt Gödel, whom David Foster Wallace branded “modern math’s absolute Prince of Darkness.” The question inherent in those three letters is a devilish one: Does P (problems that we can easily solve) equal NP (problems that we can easily check)?"
Friday, April 12, 2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Friday, January 18, 2013
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
So --- 2 days ago driving home from work and listening to Pandora - this piece comes up selected by Pandora's randomness.
Initially - I go "What the fuck Pandora -what bloody rubbish is this?" - but I'm too busy driving to change it. Or maybe I feel that despite it's strange sounds it has potential. So I continue to listen.
And it soon turns into one of the most psychedelic and mind-bending pieces of music I have ever heard. At that moment - for the first time - I realize what a serious genius Ravishankar was.
And he dies the next day ... :-/
Aren't you lucky I don't think you are particularly smart ?
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Thursday, August 30, 2012
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arindam Bhattacharya [mailto:email@example.com]
Really good documentary.
I used to watch Horizon on BBC in India - it was - and probably still is - one of the best science TV shows. I've seen great stuff - including documentaries on plate tectonics, apoptosis, Fermat's last theorem, the Riemann hypothesis, the discovery of DNA, the works of Darwin's, Fleming, Priestley, Mendel, Curie and what not.
I would say this is the show that made me want to get into science. Unfortunately, the real practice of science bears little resemblance to this romantic portrayal of it. Real science is dirty, messy and like the conversation goes:
CIA Superior: What did we learn, Palmer?
CIA Officer: I don't know, sir.
CIA Superior: I don't fuckin' know either. I guess we learned not to do it again.
CIA Officer: Yes, sir.
CIA Superior: I'm fucked if I know what we did.