[APPLAUSE] Killer robots. So killer robots
actually are real, and there are companies
making killer robots. And so you need to know
about killer robots. The characteristics
of killer robots. There’s two main
characteristics. Of course, firstly,
killer robots can kill. Secondly killer
robots are robots. But there’s another
key characteristic. See, killer robots are
controlled by humans. Because there’s a
line at this point. So this is a YouTube
screenshot of Boston Dynamics, a company that makes killer– I won’t play the video– but this is a, well, you
can find it on YouTube. It’s uploaded in October 2003. It’s fabulous video
of a killer robot. And basically it just spends
eight minutes running around the car park of this
company in America that designed this killer robot. And occasionally it runs
past a fat, balding bloke who’s holding a controller. And he’s running around you
know he’s running this killer robot around. And then you see at the end
of the day, that’s the point. The point is it’s not
just the killer robot. It’s the bloke with
the controller. He’s controlling
the killer robot. So the robot running
around the car park is being controlled by a human. And the question is, can a
computer control that killer robot instead? Computers, disruptive
technology, computers like to relieve
humans of their jobs. So could a computer
control a killer robot? And in fact, we could
go a step further. Could we write an app that
people could download on their phone now I know how much time I have. On our phone, when
you type in someone’s name into the app, then some killer
robots are unleashed and goes and kills that person. So could there be a killer
robot app, can computers do that? So that’s kind of an
interesting question. So what would a
company need in order to make that killer robot app? So firstly, they’d need
a good database, right? Because obviously you’d
type someone’s name in, and it’s got to find them. So you need names, address,
and accurate information about the daily routines
of billions of people. Secondly, we need some people
that can write the app. So we need employees who are
very good at writing computer programmes. Thirdly, we need very good
facial recognition software to make sure that the killer
robot kills the right person. Fourthly, we’re going to need
experience in kind of control– now this is one of the hardest
parts– we need to control the killer robots
out of this car park and towards the correct person. And then finally, of course, we
need an army of killer robots. So if we have all
of those things, then we can write
a killer robot app. So once the company
what’s the company that has all of those things? How about Google? So let’s have a look. Does Google have names,
addresses, location of billions of people? Absolutely. Even if you don’t
have an Android phone, even if you don’t have
a smartphone at all, somebody you know– your boss, your work colleague,
your wife, your granddaughter, somebody has typed your
name and your phone number and your address
into their Android contacts, and they’ve synced that
contact list with Google. And Google knows what your
name is, what your address is, and where you live, and
your phone number too. So does Google have employees
that can write good computer programmes?
Of course it does. Does Google have facial
recognition software? Of course it does. I had an Android tablet
once, and I just looked at it and it would unlock it
was a very cool thing. Does it have computer programmes
that can drive machines around? Of course it does,
because it’s currently spending a lot of money
on self-driving cars. So the only question
left is does Google have an army of killer robots? And the answer
is, well, you see, Google has a motto,
which says don’t be evil, which it quietly
dropped in 2015, and possibly unrelated to
that, in December 2013, Google bought Boston Dynamics
and seven other robot companies. And now suddenly Google owns
all these scary killer robots. So how many killer robots
have Google actually got? Probably enough to make it
feasible to write that app. So actually, I think
in theory, I’ve attempted to
construct a proof that in theory somebody at Google
could write an app which really would have the property that
if you type someone’s name in and it unleashes several– I mean, you’d probably have to
do some experiments to work out how many was enough– but enough killer robots
to finish this person off. So that’s something
computers can do. I think at this point in time,
all the ingredients are there. So this talk about what
computers can’t do. This, I think, puts it into
some kind of perspective. So here’s another question. If Google was sentient it
and realised that it could, maybe you wouldn’t need
a human to write the app. Maybe the computer
could write the app. Maybe very 2001. Maybe the computer
could write the app. And maybe the
computer could just decide to take over
the world because it’s got access to the
facial recognition software and the database. Maybe the computer could just
go rogue and take over the world anyway. So maybe computers would
find that appealing. But I’m not so sure, because
for a computer to make that leap and decide that it’s going to
kill everyone in the world, the computer would have
to be able to think. And I don’t know if
computers can think. So we’ve seen something
computers can do if somebody writes the programme,
they’d kill everyone. But we’ve also seen
maybe they can’t think. And in my personal
opinion, I don’t think computers can think. So here’s a picture
of two things. The thing on the left
is Garry Kasparov. He was the world chess
champion in 1997, which is when this photo was taken. And the thing on the
right is what at the time was a very
fancy-looking monitor. And that monitor is
attached to a computer. And the computer is
called Deep Blue. And it was made by IBM. And it was the best
chess-playing computer of that time. So world chess champion versus
computer chess champion. This was a six-game
match played in 1997. And it was big news. Kasparov lost, and
1997 marked the era when computers became
better at chess than humans. And since then,
all that’s happened is that computers got
much, much, much better. And now there aren’t
any more competitions between humans and computers,
because no human with any sense would ever dream of trying
to compete for chess. So who’s thinking
in this picture? Well, Garry Kasparov certainly
looks as if he’s thinking. I think that’s a
Sicilian defence. They’re a few moves
in, and he’s probably trying to work out what
the best move to play is. And he’s using his intuition. He’s using insight. He’s using experience. He’s also using psychology, even
though he’s playing a computer. He’s played this
computer before. He knows what kind of positions
that computer plays well and what kind of positions
that computer plays badly. And he’s adapting his play to
try and beat that computer. What’s the thing
on the right doing? Is the thing on
the right thinking? I’m not so sure that
thing he’s thinking. Is Deep Blue thinking? I don’t know. What does a computer do? A computer is a device
that is very, very good at following instructions
very, very quickly. And that’s different to
thinking, in my opinion. So the basic logical
instructions that the computer follows contain something
called a computer programme. But I’m going to have to tell
you something about computers and computer programmes
in this talk, but I’m going to try
and keep it simple, whilst also attempting to
get to the difficult point. So let me tell you two
things about a computer. First thing is the
computer has memory. A computer needs to
store information. Because sometimes it
does calculations then remembers the answer to look
back at the answer later. So the computer needs memory
because a computer stores information. The computer programme is
typically stored in the memory as well. And a computer also
needs a processor. The processor is basically the
bit of the computer that reads all the instructions in the
programme and does them one by one very, very quickly. And sometimes the
instructions say, go and do this instruction instead. Jump over here. And the processor
works very, very fast following these instructions. So nowadays a 4 gigahertz
processor, you probably have one of those
in your phone now, that’s following 4 billion
instructions per second. And so you can see even in
1997, because IBM had a lot of interest in computers
and doing a lot of research into making computers very fast,
that computer Deep Blue was analysing 200 million chess
positions every second. So what was it doing? It was just trying
all the moves– even the most ridiculous. It would try moves. That piece I moved last
time, let’s just put it back. That’s the kind of
move it would try. It would try every single move. And it would try
all the responses and keep going very, very fast. And then it would make
some kind of guess as to which positions
looked OK, and then they follow up with them. But Kasparov wasn’t
playing like that. There were many moves in
a given chess position the Kasparov wouldn’t even
consider because he could see. He had intuition. He knew they were
going backwards. But intuition ultimately gets
defeated by brute force search, analysing millions and millions
of chess positions per second. Eventually we’ve now
proved that computers can do this better than humans. So I don’t think
that’s thinking. So I think they’re kind of
safe from computers going rogue and trying to kill us all. But you see the reason I
don’t think it is thinking is because I do a lot of
unloading the dishwasher. And unloading the
dishwasher it’s a very mechanical procedure. There’s a plate. I know where the plates go. There’s the bowls. And I know where the bowls go. There’s the cutlery and I
know where the cutlery goes. And I just sit,
just unthinkingly, I sit and put everything away. And I actually even
unload the dishwasher in exactly the same
order every time. Because I’m trying to be like
a computer in some sense. And while I’m doing
that I’m thinking. And I’m certainly not
thinking about what I’m doing. What I’m doing is somehow
subconsciously hovering in the background. Yeah, I tend to be
thinking about mathematics, or whether I’m
hungry, or what I’m going to do after I finish
unloading the dishwasher. And that’s thinking. And both the computer, when we
have robots unload dishwashers, they would just download the
dishwasher and they’d be gone. So I need to talk
about certain puzzles. We need to talk about
problems, and whether or not we can do them or not. So I want to talk
about problems, but the only problems
I’ve mentioned so far have been very
difficult problems. I’ve talked about the problems
of writing an app that will somehow unleash killer robots. That’s actually a very difficult
problem for an engineer, because there’s lots
and lots of components that need to go in it. And then somehow beating the
world chess champion at chest is also very
difficult. Even trying to work out what the question
is, do computers think, that’s very, very hard. And different people
have different opinions. So we need to think about
some similar problems if we actually want
to get anywhere. What I’m going to do
first, because I don’t know how many of you are very
happy with the abstract notion of a computer, I want to
forget about computers as well, and I just don’t talk about
the idea of what a problem is and how to solve it. And how to know we’ve solved it. But also, if you
get a problem we’re stuck on, then wondering whether
that problem can be solved. I want to consider these ideas. And the reason I’m
giving this talk, really, is because I gave a
big course this summer. I thought a lot about proving
things and how to prove things. And so one thing led to another. I got very interested
in this topic. So here’s a problem raised
by the Ancient Greeks. Can I bisect an angle
using ruler and compasses? So this is an ancient,
2000-year-old problem. The ancient Greeks, you
know, we have Euclid, they were very good at this kind
of thing, the ancient Greeks. They were very interested
in this kind of question. So if could have
the visualizer on, I will now demonstrate
what an angle is and how to bisect it
using ruler and compasses. All this on the
Holloway Road today, just the same as the one I
had when I was in the C form. And lo and behold,
a pair of compasses. Fabulous. And a ruler. And I’ve also pinched one of
my daughter’s felt tip pens. So first of all I
need to draw an angle. So there’s an angle. That looks OK. I think it’s OK. Can you see the angle? I think it’s OK. There’s a shadow. Maybe I shouldn’t worry. So here’s the angle. And what the job is,
what’s the question, the question is can
we bisect the angle. And bisect, as maybe
many of you remember, bisect means I need to draw a
line just around down there, exactly in the
middle of this angle. I need to cut this angle
into two equal pieces. That’s the kind of thing that
the ancient Greeks were doing. Euclid wrote an
entire book on it. So can we bisect this angle? And the point is you can’t
kind of go, well, it’s kind of, it’s sort of. You’re not allowed to do that. You’re not allowed to guess. You’ve got to do it exactly. But we don’t just have a ruler. We’ve got some compasses. So watch this. Here’s how you do it. First of all, you put the
point of the compass dead on that angle. And then, of course,
we draw a circle. Or I’m only going to draw
that bit of that circle. Now the thing about circles
is that the distance from the centre of the circle
to the edge of the circle, the circumference of the
circle, is always the same, wherever you draw
the circumference. So one thing I know for sure
is that that line there, that red line there, is exactly
the same length as that line there. Because I’ll even tell
you what the length is. The length is this length here. The length is the distance
between the pencil tip and the spiky bit. So those two lines are
definitely the same length. And now I’m going to
do something else. I’m going to put
that spiky bit here. It’s probably got a
name, but I never– they don’t even have these. I went to the stationery
cupboard said, could I have a pair of compasses,
and they looked at me like I was an idiot. Apparently things have moved on. I don’t know. So there, while I’m
chatting, I’m doing it. You didn’t even see
what I was doing. I put the point thing
there, and I drew an arc. And I put the pointy thing
there and I drew an arc. And those two arcs have
met at that point there. And I’m going to draw
these two lines now. And again, in both
cases that is a line that went from where
the point of it was to where the pencil bit was. So I’ve drawn four lines
now, and all those lines are the same length. So great. Four-sided shape, all
lines are the same length. What’s it going to be? It’s going to be a square. But it’s not square because
it’s a bit squashed. It’s called a rhombus. And now we open our copy of
Euclid’s Elements from 300 B.C. And we find the
proposition that says you’ve got a rhombus
like this, and you draw the diagonal of the rhombus. Let’s do it in pencil,
because it’s not the same. All the red lines
are the same length. Here we go. Let’s do that in pencil. There’s the diagonal
of the rhombus. And you can see the rhombus
is very, very symmetric. And so this is a line of
symmetry of the rhombus, and everything is all the same. This angle, this
angle, and this angle are going to be the same, right? Oh, it looks quite– oh yeah, I just was
looking at that one. It looked terrible. It does look quite
good up there. So there we go. So we’ve drawn this line,
and it’s cut the angle into– Euclid is clever. It’s been know for
over 2,300 years. And in a book that
was apparently the thing to read, even
up to the 19th century. If you were an educated person
then you would read Euclid. So I bisected that angle. So here’s the question. Here’s a theorem, a
mathematical theorem. It’s possible to bisect an angle
using a ruler and compasses. And the proof of the theorem
is you just watched me do it. And I talked your
way through it, so I convinced you
that I was doing it. And of course Euclid
does more than that. He labels the
things A and B and C to solve math things that
you maybe do at school. And ends up proving that you
can bisect an angle using ruler and compasses. So it can be done. And not only that, the
reason it can be done is because I did it. So if Euclid did it 2,300
years ago– and now here’s another problem raised
by the Ancient Greeks. Can you trisect an angle
using ruler and compasses? So bisect means cut it
into two equal bits. Trisect means cut it
into three equal bits. So can you trisect an angle
using ruler and compass? You’ve got to think
what you’ve got. Bisecting, you kind of think,
you know, you’re on a roll. You try trisecting, and the
ancient Greeks couldn’t do it. They found it very
difficult to trisect angles using ruler and compasses. So that problem sat
around unsolved, with nobody doing it, and
somehow if you can’t do it, then what other
alternative is there? And 2000 years later,
in 1837, Pierre Wantzel proved it was impossible to do. So that’s why the Greeks
couldn’t do it, because it was impossible to do it. And bisecting the
angle is kind of cool. But this is super
interesting, because proving that it’s impossible
to do something, the questions are
formally very similar, bisect an angle,
trisect an angle. But we solved one
of them by doing it, and then 2000 years later
we solved the other way by proving it can’t be done. We resolved the question. It cannot be done. And that’s why
the Greeks failed. But the Greeks didn’t want to
conclude it couldn’t be done. They just wanted to conclude
they couldn’t do it. So how does one prove it’s
impossible to do something? Somehow, I don’t know, that
result seems striking to me. So what did Wantzel have that
the ancient Greeks didn’t have? The ancient Greeks had geometry. They were beginning to
develop some arithmetic. And these were somehow the
two fields of mathematics that we completely
disjoin sometimes. They didn’t have much abstract
mathematical machinery available to them. By the early 1800s,
when Wantzel was around, mathematicians had
worked out what zero was. Remember for the Greeks
every number was positive. They’d invented zero,
negative numbers. That Cartesian Coordinates,
this is the big insight. Rene Descartes observed that if
you have a point on the plane, you can think of that point,
something in x=coordinate and a y-coordinate. So suddenly that
point which hitherto had been a geometric notion,
that point suddenly has an arithmetic interpretation. We can explain where that
point is using numbers. This is a link between
geometry and arithmetic that the Greeks didn’t have. So it took Rene Descartes,
and but nowadays it’s kind of a trivial thing. You draw graphs, and
this is y this is x, and you’re just taught it. But someone had
to discover this. Turned out it was a
genius who discovered it. And also these people,
because they were also quite good at arithmetic,
they had long since isolated these four basic– plus, minus, times, and divide– but now instead of thinking
about all the numbers they were interested
in subsets of numbers. Things like the
rational numbers. You can do addition,
subtraction, multiplication, division on them. And now this is
somehow when things begin to get interesting. They developed an abstract
theory of dimension. So they consider these
fields of numbers. They can see a collection
of numbers, called it a field of numbers, then they
consider a bigger collection of numbers, they call it
a bigger field of numbers. And they realised that there
was a notion of dimension. The bigger thing had a dimension
over the smaller thing. And if you make the
smaller thing really small, you can make the
dimension get very big. So this is not kind of
a real-world dimension. This is an abstract mathematical
notion of degrees of freedom. And using these
abstract collections of fields of numbers,
they could construct objects that had some
abstract, very large dimension. So it took 2,000 years to
develop these concepts. And once they were developed,
Wantzel could take them, and he realised that it was
impossible to trisect not just any angle. He proved it was impossible even
to trisect a 60-degree angle using ruler and compasses. So basically he
looked to the system– I don’t want to
bore you, really, but this is what I teach in
my third-year Galois theory course. He looked at the
systems of numbers generated by the coordinates. You see, he turns a geometric
problem into arithmetic one. He looks at the number
systems generated by the coordinates
of these points that you can only reconstruct
with a ruler and compass. And he proved that the
dimensions of all these fields was always a power of two. Then he proved that the system
of numbers you generate, if you can trisect a 360-degree
angle, got dimension 3. And 3 is not in that list. The list goes 1, 2,
4, 16, dah, dah, dah. Never contains the number three. So this is how the proof worked. So the conclusion so
far is that Euclid proved it was possible
to bisect an angle and Wantzel proved it was
impossible to trisect an angle using ruler and compasses. And so we learned from
this that mathematicians can prove something is
impossible by just doing it. And they could also prove
that something is impossible. But actually it lies deeper. It often lies deeper. And it might take thousands
of years to develop a theory. So we’re going to see
another example of this next. And of course, as
a remark, that’s if we use modern tools, modern
things that were nowhere near known to the ancient Greeks. But the modern tools, as well
as doing modern mathematics, they can solve ancient problems. This is in some
sense a vindication of the modern tools,
the fact that they can resolve ancient problems. So this phenomena is
commonplace in mathematics. You get questions that a
raised and sometimes take hundreds of years of answer. And the tools you’ll
use in answering them are often not tools that
were even in existence when the questions were stated. So there’s mathematics. Now let’s talk about computers. So there’s the first-ever
computer programmer, Ada, Countess of Lovelace. So why is she the first-ever
computer programmer? Because she wrote the
first-ever computer programme. So a guy called Charles
Babbage, he was not really a mathematician, he
was more an engineer, but he designed something called
Babbage’s analytical engine. It was a machine,
but actually it was a machine you
could set the dials and you could actually
tell the machine to do lots of different things. It was a very primitive
kind of computer. You set the dials, that’s
like writing a programme. And then you run the
machine and the machine runs according where
the dials are set. So this is really
the first computer that was around in some
sense, this analytical engine. And Babbage gave
lectures on it in Italy, somebody took notes in
French, and these notes made it into the hands of Ada
Lovelace, who decided she’d translate them into English. And while she was
translating them, of course, you translate
something, you read it, she read it and she
learned the material. And then she wrote a series
of appendices at the end of Babbage’s notes, and
Appendix G, the last appendix, there’s an example of where
you can set the dials in order to run a programme that would
compute Bernoulli numbers, which were the thing, you know. And people would compute
things by sitting down with pieces of paper and
writing them all out. In her observations,
Bernoulli numbers a bit annoying to compute. But if we have one of these
analytical engines, then actually we could just
set the dials like this, switch it on, and out come
the Bernoulli numbers. So it would save somebody a job. So Ada Lovelace. She wrote the first
computer programme, also we can ascribe
to her a theorem, a computer can calculate
Bernoulli numbers. And the proof is do it. Just like the proof of bisecting
the angle was doing it, the proof is let’s just write
a computer programme that computes Bernoulli numbers. So that’s what she did. She never saw it run, because
Babbage’s analytical engine was never built, in fact. There were technical design
problems at the beginning. By the time these
things were resolved, the money had run out,
the funding dried up, and the analytical
engine never got built, and Lovelace died at 36 and
never saw her programme run. But of course nerds went
away and made other ones. So it does work. And they compute
Bernoulli numbers. If you’re thinking, you see
where the story is going. So now we skip forward
100 years to Alan Turing. And Alan Turing, he thought
about computers as well, but he wasn’t an engineer. He was a mathematician. And so he started thinking
about mathematically modelling a computer. Kind of like using arithmetic
to study points in geometry. He started to wonder whether
you could model a computer using the language of mathematics. And nowadays it’s
called a Turing machine. And Turing’s mathematical
description of a computer opened the doors
for mathematicians now to start proving much more
deeper and profound results about what computers
could or couldn’t do. And of course, we’re in
just the same situation. you’ve got a problem. The question is can
a computer do it? If the answer is yes, how
do you show the answers? You just write a computer
programme that does it. How do you show
the answer is no? That’s going to be difficult. So Lovelace cited this
interesting problem computing Bernoulli
numbers and showed the computer could do it. And Turing also isolated an
interesting abstract problem, but he showed, because he
had more tools than Lovelace, he showed a computer could
not solve this problem. And again, when you
just step back, how ever are you going to prove
something like that? How can you check that every
single computer programme ever was written, will be
written, can be written, will not solve this problem? I’m going to try to explain
to you how he did it. And the problem wasn’t just
an abstract problem as well. It’s not just this bisect
the angle nonsense, this sad thing Wantzel proved
you couldn’t trisect the angle. By this stage, nobody cared. Whereas Turing, Turing
works on a problem that actually even though
in 1936 when he worked on it there were still no
computers, right? The first computers started
appearing in the 40s. And Turing actually was
involved in several of them. But Turing proved
this theory in 1936, before a single computer
had ever been built, a single computer programme
had ever been run. He was interested in the idea
that computers might sometimes crash. And computers crashing
is a pain, right? You lose data, you
lose information. You have to switch
it off and on again. We don’t want
computers crashing. Turing could see
that this was going to be an issue before any
computers ever even existed. So I’m going to try to tell
you about what Turing did. So let me try and explain to you
what a computer programme looks like. So this is a computer
programme read in pseudo code. So it’s kind of read
in English but there’s lots and lots of steps. And what the
processor will do is it will just go from each
step to the next step, unless somebody tells
it to do something else. And each step will
carefully read what’s there, and it will do what it’s told. And it will to do it
very, very quickly. So this computer programme
here, step 1, run it. You have it on your phone,
you click on that app, and little screen pops
up, says type in a number. And you type in a number
like 53, and you click OK. And you’ve typed in 53
and the box disappears. And our step 2 is
let x be that number. So now if we typed
a 53, x will be 53. Now step three is a
funny thing that involves the question is x equal to 7? But we’ve typed in 53,
so x isn’t equal to 7. If x was equal to 7, we
would have gone somewhere. So x isn’t equal to
7, so we go to step 6. So we’ve typed in 53, x is 53. We’re at step 3, x isn’t 7. So let’s go to step 6. Step 6 we print hello on
the screen and then we stop. So when you run this
app on your phone, you click on the little app,
it says type in a number. We type 53. We click OK. Another little box
pops up saying hello, and then that’s it. App is finished. If you play with it for a bit,
you’ll realise that that’s what it normally does. But then eventually
you hit on the idea of typing in the number 7. And so you type in number 7. The computer lets
x be 7 in step 2. In step 3, notice
the x is equal to 7. And instead of going to
step 3, you go to step 4. And in step 4, you can
see what to do in step 4. You just go to step 5.
so it goes to step 5. And step 5 says go to step 4. And so it goes to step 4. Then step 4 says go to step 5. So it goes to step
4, and it just alternates between step 4 and 5. You can tell the
computer is not thinking, because if a human
had to do that, they’d get bored at some point. But the computer will
just keep doing it. That’s exactly what
they’re paid to do. They just quite happily,
mindlessly follow the instructions. So the computer will get
stuck going between step 4 and step 5. Now you’re running
this, if your operating system gets stuck in that kind
of loop, then it’s stopped. You see, line 1 is kind
of implicitly saying, what’s the person
pressing on the keyboard? But if you’re just hopping
between step 4 and step 5, the computer isn’t looking
at the keyboard or the mouse or anything like that. You wiggle these things
around and nothing happens, and you know what’s happened. When your computer
is in that state, you press the Caps Lock key
and the light doesn’t come on, you know that your
computer’s had it, and you have to switch
off and on again. So computer programmes
sometimes get stuck in loops, and you’ve all seen it happen. So there you go. If the user types
in the number 7, that computer programme can
get stuck in a endless loop, so it crashes. So here is a much more
complicated programme. We’re not going to analyse it,
because we’d just basically spend all day analysing it. That other one had seven steps. This one’s got nine steps,
but it’s vastly complicated. You ask a user to
type in a number. Let’s say they type
in the number 9. Step 2, let x be that number. Step 3, if x is bigger than 10. It’s not bigger than
10, 9 is less than 10. So we get to step 6. Step 6 says if it’s less than
10, and it is less than 10, because 9 is less than
10, so we go to step 4. Step 4, x changes. Step 4 we replace
x by 2 times x. So now suddenly x was
9 and now it’s 18. And then what do we do? We go back to step 3. Now x is 18, and now x is
bigger than 10, so we go to 7. And you can see we’re
kind of jumping around. The x is 18. Step 7 says if x is less
than 100, go to step 4. Step 4, we’ve been
to step 4 before, so you’re going to think,
oh, an infinite loop. But we’re not in
an infinite loop, because when we were at
step 4 before, x was 9. And now we’re at step
4 again, x is 18. And so we’re not exactly
the same state as before. So we might not be
in an infinite loop. And x is going to
be replaced by 36. And you see it jumps around. We didn’t even go to– step 5 is ridiculous. It’s not really clear. This is the question,
can this computer problem get stuck in an infinite loop? That is a tricky
logic puzzle, right? And I don’t fancy doing it. Somehow I would try to
do it using intuition. I would try to find key numbers
which behave differently to other numbers. But can this computer get
stuck in an infinite loop? Figuring out that
kind of question is a complicated logic puzzle. Now I like doing complicated
logic puzzles, but actually, at the end of the day,
what kind of gadget is really suited to solving
complicated logic problems? It’s a computer. So what we should
really do is not bother solving that
problem at all. What does that mean? That doesn’t mean I stop. I’m halfway. Oh that’s good, because I’m
halfway through the slides as well, because the last
two slides are jokes. So this is the sort
of puzzle which would be ideal for a
computer to work on. And so this is what
Turing decided to work on. Let’s write a computer programme
that checks other computer programmes to see if I get
stuck in infinite loops. So when a computer gets
stuck in an infinite loop, we’ll let it crash. And that’s bad, right? So we’ll say a computer
programme is bad if it can get stuck in an infinite loop. And we’ll say a computer
programme is good if it never gets stuck in an infinite loop. So there’s some definitions. And now Turing says, how do
we check to see if a computer programme is good? We want to tell the good
programmes from the bad programmes. So he’s going to write
a computer programme. So in his 1936 paper he
abstractly axiomatised mathematically what
a computer was. And so now he can
use mathematics to work on this question. And he found the
solution, which as I say, you probably guessed by now. So Turing’s going to try and
write a computer programme. And the input to the computer
programme is not a number. You’ve probably gone
to some website, I do this when I’m
writing references. You click on something that
says, upload your reference. And you find the reference and
then you just drag it over. Computer programmes will quite
happily accept random files as inputs rather
than just numbers. So this computer programme
that Turing is going to write, he’s going to write a computer
programme that takes this input, an arbitrary
computer programme, a different computer programme,
and then Turing’s computer is going to print out good
if it’s a good one, and bad if it’s a bad one. So Turing’s going to try and
design that computer programme. But actually something
interesting has happened here. Because if I’ve got a computer
programme that takes us into the computer programme,
that means that you take the computer programme itself
and put the computer programme into itself, which
is a little bit meta. And that was where
the fun started. So Turing realised if he
could tell good from bad with a computer programme, then
he could write a ridiculous, useless computer programme,
computer programme k, which would behave like a
bad programme if you inputted a good programme and behave
like a good programme if you inputted a bad one. So the idea is you
input the programme, the crazy programme k figures
out if it’s good or bad. If it’s bad, that’s great. if it’s bad, it will just stop. And if it’s good, it
will intentionally go into an infinite
loop and be bad. So programme k is bad
if the input is good. And programme k is good
it’s the input’s bad. And then of course you take
programme k and you feed it into itself. Now what’s the consequence? So now we could ask is the
answer going to be good or bad? If k is bad, then you feed it
into k, and it is good, right? If k is bad, then
k must be good. And if k is good,
then i must be bad. So there’s something wrong. Because the computer programme
can’t be both good or bad. So we must have made a
mistake, because we’ve got a contradiction. And the mistake is because
the two-letter word I’ve underlined,
that I’ve put in red. The mistake is Turing’s initial
assumption that we could write a computer programme which can
tell good code from bad code. So that’s Turing’s mistake. I mean it’s not a mistake,
it was an assumption. The assumption is the
only part of the argument that he couldn’t make
completely logically valid. So his assumption is wrong. And Turing’s conclusion is it is
impossible to write a computer programme which can check
any and every other computer programme for bugs. You cannot. And this is why computer
programmes will crash. Because it’s impossible to
tell if they’ve got bugs. So Turing rigorously
proved that in 1936. Remark, still before any
computers had existed. I’ve sketched the
idea but what I want to stress as
absolutely crucial to it all was the fact that he’d
abstracted what a computer was and put it in mathematics. So there you go. So there’s a
summary of this bit. Lovelace proved that a certain
interesting problem can be solved using a
computer programme. The proof was just do it. Turing proved that a certain
problem could not be solved using a computer programme 100
years later once the machinery got more sophisticated. So again we see an example. Turing proved that it was
impossible to do something. In my mind, it’s
an amazing thing to prove you can’t do something. So it’s formally just
like trisecting angles. So this is what happens in life. This is obviously mathematics. People work on areas of
interest and eventually they run into obstructions. They run into problems
which they can’t solve. And people work on them,
and of course sometimes they get solved later on. But sometimes they remain
obstinate and then eventually it turns out the reason
they remain obstinate is because the answer is that your
mathematical machinery cannot solve this problem. So very brief
summary, we can prove it’s possible to do
something by doing it. We can prove it’s
impossible to do something, but it often lies deep. So we’ve seen an example
in pure mathematics and we’ve seen example in
theoretical computer science. Theoretical computer
science with a capital T, really, because
what do I mean? There’s an issue with
Turing’s computers that I’ll come to now. So what we’re really
interested in nowadays is because our
computers do exist, and they’re becoming vastly
dominant in our lives, I’m going to talk about a
practical problem involving computers. So let me first
tell you, I told you the Turing axiomatised
abstractly what a computer was. And here’s some of the
problems with Turing’s theoretical notion
of a computer. Firstly, had an infinite
amount of memory. Because mathematicians
are kind of used to things being infinite. There’s an infinite
amount of numbers. So it had an infinite
amount of memory. And he didn’t really care
about processing speed. All he cared about was did he
get stuck in an infinite loop or not? So if he had a programme that it
turned out got stuck in a loop that would basically take
a million years to get out of, but in a million years
your mouse will magically start working again and your computer
didn’t crash after all, you see you don’t really– you don’t somehow, if it is
going to take a million years, you’re not really interested. So in reality
computers have memory. And memory, this is engineering,
memory is made of stuff, right? Like terabyte hard
drives are made out tiny, tiny little magnets. And solid-state
drives are made up of tiny little
electrical circuits. But any memory location that
stores a piece of information needs to be physically
made if we’re going to make one
in our universe and stop looking at abstract
computers like Turing. So we are going to need
at least a particle. One at least. Bare minimum, we’re
going to need a particle to make that thing. And unfortunately there’s
only 10 to the power of 80– that’s one with 80 zeros– there’s only one with
80 zeros, there’s only that number of particles
in the entire universe. So that puts a limit on how
much memory a computer can have. And similarly,
quantum mechanics says that when you look
very, very small, things get much weirder
than you might expect. So one of the consequences
of quantum mechanics currently believed theory
is that there is basically a smallest unit
of distance which is meaningful to talk about. And beyond that, things
just get to strange. And it’s a very tiny distance. But beyond that distance,
somehow everything becomes meaningless. If you believe relativity,
information can’t travel faster than the speed of light. So one might ask,
how long the light would take to travel one
of these Planck distances. It’s all to do with
Planck’s constant and stuff. And it turns out that
a light would take 10 to power minus 44. So that’s naught point and
then 44 noughts and a 1. No, it’s not. It’s naught point that
43 naughts and than one. There’s one Planck time. 10 to the minus 44 seconds. So you cannot hope that your
computer can do anything, because it’s impossible to
do anything in a unit of time shorter than one Planck time. Well of course, the Earth
will become uninhabitable around a billion years. We’re interested in
computers on Earth. Then this is going
to be an issue. And more generally we’ll
be interested in computers in the universe, then we
have to kind of figure out when the heat death of
the universe will be. But I read a lot about
this on Wikipedia, and scientists aren’t sure. They don’t really
know if the universe is going to expand forever. I mean they believe
in the Big Bang, but they don’t know if there’s
going to be a big crash, or if it’s just going to stop. So I don’t really know
where the universe will end, but certainly the sun will burn
out in a few billion years, and by 1 billion years
it will be this red dwarf and the seas will be boiling. And again, if you
think about it, that puts some theoretical limit
on the number of instructions that any computer can do. So let me just summarise. So to summarise, I’m not
now interested in Turing’s abstract theoretical computers. What about computers on
this planet that can’t run a programme which involves
storing that much information, where that much is some
number I’ve chosen, very large to make sure that
it’s more than the number of particles in the universe. And similarly, they can’t run
computer programmes in which the processor has to do
that many instructions. Because again, I’ve just chosen
these very, very large number to make sure that even if it did
10 to the power 44 instructions every second, it
still, you know, the world is going to
be a dead hulk by then. So there these limitations
that Turing didn’t have. Turing didn’t really care. Turing had other
things to think about. I mean there was a war on. But these issues are
now practical, right? It’s not just can we
solve the problem or not. It’s can solve the
problem quickly? So these now give
rise to new questions here’s the last thing
I need to talk about. The remainder of
the talk I’m going to talk about a third question. So here’s two
computer programmes. They’re not like these nightmare
ones that I just showed. These are two very simple
computer programmes, because I need to
teach you a concept. Computer programme 1, the
user types in a number. The user types in 53. And then step 2, let
x be that number. So x is 53. And all it does, it
doesn’t print hello. It prints out x. Sample run for Programme 1. The user types in
number 53 and clicks OK, and the computer prints out 53. So it just prints
out what you type. So computer Programme 2
formally looks very similar. This time the user
types in a number. You let x be that number. But now instead of printing
out x using our normal notation for printing numbers
out, instead all it does is print out x. Think, 53 has a meaning, right? 53 means 53 things. So instead of printing
out our clever notation, it actually prints out
the meaning of the number. So it prints out 53 things. So if you don’t like
line 3, then how do you actually print out x 0. What you would really do is
you just print out 1 zero, and then you’ll decrease x by 1. And if it was still
positive, then you’ll keep going so you’d actually
do this using a loop. So that’s how you print out x
0s, using a computer Programme. So now of course sample
1, let’s type in 53 again, and this is the output. We just get 53 zeros. So now let’s have
a race, Programme 1 against Programme 2. We’ll type in 53 to both of
them, and who’s going to win? Programme 1 is going to
win, because Programme 2 has got to do a lot more work. First Programme is
going to finish– I mean, in practise of course,
both are finished in the blink of an eye. So you won’t even
be able to notice. But I want to explain
a way of telling why this second
Programme must be worse than the first Programme. Why it’s sort of less,
why it works more slowly. And it’s because of scaling. So by scaling I mean
let’s not type in 53. Let’s now think about
typing in a bigger number. Let’s type a 5 and then 3,
then let’s type another number. So instead of typing in
53, let’s type in 531. And now let’s run
our two programmes. We saw what happened
when we typed in 53. Now let’s type in 531. The first Programme used
to have to print out 53. Now it’s got to print out 531. It just takes one
more digit, right? Not very much more time at all. The second Programme is going
to print out 531 things now. And 531 is about 10 times 53. So the second Programme is
going to take 10 times as long to finish. So they behave in
very different ways with a small perturbation
of the input data. If I make the input data
a little bit bigger, The first Programme
deals with it easily. The second Programme, the
amount of time it takes gets multiplied by a constant. So you have this compound
interest phenomenon. If you leave a penny
in a bank long enough, eventually you’ll get to a
million pounds sort of thing. Because things can
blow up substantially. if you double your
money every time, then by the time you doubled
your money 10 times, you’ve multiplied your
money by over 1,000. So this is an issue that
the second Programme has. It doesn’t scale well. You make the input
a little bit bigger and suddenly it takes
a lot longer to run. So when you’re trying to
solve real-world problems, the input data might
well slowly increase. So you want to make sure that
your computer Programme doesn’t ground to a halt if
the input data starts getting bigger and bigger. So an example is it’s a very
complicated problem trying to work out when all the
students in the college are going to take exams. Because lots and
lots of students registered for lots and
lots of different courses, so you have to make
sure that every student, they haven’t taken
two courses for which the exams at the same time. But all these exams
are going to be crammed in to a small part of time. So you have to have some
exams at the same time. It’s a very delicate question. Of course, we do have a computer
Programme to solve this. And we want to make it
scale like Programme 1, not like Programme 2. So scaling, I talked
about it informally. The mathematicians have
formalised these notions. So the first time you
do a historical search, the first time you see this
notion of people really beginning to care about not just
abstractly whether computers can do things but how long
it takes them to do them is in a 1954 letter. This is the Beautiful Mind
guy, 1955 letter from John Nash the NSA, the American
security agency, where he began to lay
down that he isolated the issue that actually it’s not
about whether the computer can solve it. It’s about how quickly
the computer can solve it. And he writes explicit problems
in the area, some of which he can solve. So I’ll tell you what
Nash said, because these are kind of important words. “A computer runs
in polynomial time if it scales like
the first Programme.” That’s an informal definition. I’ll give you a
proper definition. Here’s the proper
definition there. So formally, “A
computer Programme runs in polynomial time if
there’s a polynomial function n to the power 20 plus 1,000.” So if you input a
number with n digits, then the computer will churn
away and it will finish. But how long will
it take to finish? The Programme will finish. But it will do at
most o of n steps. That’s the idea. If you can write a computer
Programme like that, then you’ve got a
polynomial that’s kind of controlling how
fast your computer will take to calculate. And polynomials don’t
grow too quickly. This is sort of
morally the thought. But also in practise, polynomial
time computer programmes are what people are after. If you’ve got a problem and you
can solve in polynomial time, then somebody has
already written the code that will solve
that problem for you, and it will run
very efficiently. So we’re interested now in the
collection of problems which can be solved with a computer,
and furthermore, the computer can solve it quickly. Problems that could be
solved in polynomial time. And mathematicians
being what they are, they needed a name for
these collection problems, so they call it p because
that’s what they do. So that’s now called p, the
collection of problems which we can solve in practise quickly. So now let me just mention
codes a little bit. Secret codes are really good. You agree on a secret
code with your friends and then you’ve got
the secret code, your friends have got the secret
code, but nobody else has. And now you can send
messages to your friend using the secret code. Because you got
your message and you encrypt it using
the secret code. You send to your
friend, and they decrypt it using the secret code. You’ve both got the secret
code, but no one else has got the secret
code so it works. So I’m afraid nowadays
things aren’t so easy. Because I want my phone to
kind of connect to random– yeah, I want my computer
to talk to other– if I go to a website I’ve
never been to before, my computer is suddenly
talking to another computer that it’s never met before. And I might have to type
in my credit card details if I want to buy something. And now I need to talk
to this other computer. I need to send the computer a
secret piece of information, but we haven’t
got a secret code. You see, the problem
is people can hear what you’re doing on the internet. Your ISP knows
what you’re doing. The government probably
knows what you’re doing. And people that are just
generally snooping around on the internet
might see packets going by from your computer. So this is a problem. Secret codes aren’t
good enough anymore. We need something called
“public key cryptography,” where the idea is I establish a
code we’re going to use. And even if somebody is
snooping on my packets, even if my next-door neighbour
who’s got some kind of Wi-Fi detector thing and they’re
watching all my Wi-Fi packets, I need to make sure that they
can’t find out what my credit card is. So these things are
called public key codes, public key cryptography. And rather surprisingly,
they exist. They were invented in the 70s,
when it was realised that these things were important. And the way they work is
they exploit asymmetries in encoding and
decoding algorithms. So the idea is you want to
make sure the encoding is quick but decoding is slow. So let me give you an
example of an asymmetry. If you’ve got a
piece of cotton, I’ll give you a long piece of cotton,
and I’ll give you two minutes and you can tie as many
knots in it as you like. And you can tie lots
and lots of knots. And at the end of
it you can imagine you can make this piece of
cotton into a real mess. Lots and lots of
tiny little knots. You pull them tight,
but after a while the knots kind of get– you’ve
done this, I’ve done this. The knots kind of get
closer and closer together. And they kind of start
compiling up on each other. And at the end you get a nice
kind of chunky little thing that’s really
difficult to untie. So you turn a piece of cotton
into a big, complicated knot. It’s very easy. Give me a couple
of minutes, I’ll give you a complicated knot. On the other hand, you’ve
got a big, complicated knot. If you go to untie it,
it can be very difficult. It’s going to be
possible, but it’s going to take a lot
more than two minutes. So some things in
life are asymmetric. And surprisingly, something
you know a lot about, multiplication, turns out
to be one of those things. So here’s a
multiplication problem. I’m going to tell you
the answer, don’t worry. What’s 43 times 61? There’s a method. You learnt it at school. Long multiplication. 43 times 61, we do 1, 3 we
do 4, 3 6s and 4 6s as well. And then we do some adding
and we’ve got the answer. And how many steps
did be actually take. We did 1 times 3, 1 times 4. 3 times 6, 4 times 6. We did under 10 steps. So long multiplication
is actually a really good method for
multiplying numbers together. That scales very well. Here’s the clue that
it scales very well. What are the numbers involved? The smallest number involved is
43, but did it take 43 steps? With that computer Programme
that you typed in 43 print out 43 zeros. That takes 43 steps. Here we didn’t use
anywhere near 43 steps. We did it at under 10. So that’s the clue
it scales very well. So now let’s un-multiply. So here is the answer, 2,183. I times two numbers
together and I got 2,183. And what were those two numbers? Now they don’t teach you
now to do that at school. So let’s do trial and error. Was it 2 times something? We could divide 2,183 by 2. It doesn’t work. We get remainder 1. So let’s divide it by 3. It doesn’t work. We get remainder 2. And so we just divide it
by 4, or if you’re smart you’ll skip 4 because you’ve
done 2 and you’ll go to 5. But you keep dividing and
dividing and dividing, and eventually you divide
it by 36, it doesn’t work. You get remainder 33. You divide 2,183 by 37,
it works on the nose. There’s no remainder. It’s 59. So we conclude 2,183
is 37 times 59. But when you think
about it, so what are the numbers involved
in this question? 2,183, 37, and 59. And how many steps did it take? You see, this method is
going to scale poorly because we took 37– I guess we took 36 steps
because we didn’t divide by 1. But this particular method for
undoing multiplication scales very, very poorly, just
like the second Programme. Because the answer involved
37, but it’s took steps. Whereas, before you multiply
these things together, we do it in under 10 steps. So there’s an asymmetry. You can multiply them
together in just a few steps, but un-multiplying them,
factoring them it’s called, it took forever. It took 37 steps. 37 isn’t very long, really,
but before I go into that point I was about to make,
every published method for un-multiplying numbers,
in fact, scales poorly. Some of them scale less
poorly than this one, but every published
method scales poorly. We don’t know how to do that. So factoring actually
might be a problem, that it is not possible
in polynomial time. And now let’s scale. If instead of multiplying
two-digit numbers together we started multiplying
100-digit numbers together, then we can multiply
them together. We have to do this times
this, this times this. We have to take a digit from
the first and the second number. That’ll take 100
times 100 is 10,000. So we do 10,000 multiplications. We do 10,000 additions. We do about 20,000 steps. That’s not a problem. Do 30,000 steps in
the blink of an eye. But remember, I’m talking about
numbers with 100 digits here. Those numbers have
a meaning, right? We write them down
in this neat way, 1, naught, naught, naught, naught. It’s very clever. But they have a meaning. And the meaning is a vastly,
vastly huge number of things that you can’t even comprehend. And indeed it’s a number too
big to fit in the universe. It’s a number bigger
than the number a particles in the universe. So that number is
representing an idea that’s too big for our universe. If we just know the answer,
the 200-digit number, which we get by timesing
them together, and we want to
recover the factors, and we’re going to use
this method I explained, we might have to count all the
way up to a 100-digit number. And we can’t do that, because
the universe isn’t big enough, we don’t have enough time, and
we don’t have enough space, and it can’t be done– at least within my lifetime. And when you’re
sending secret codes, you’re not really worried
about whether they’re cracked after you’re gone. Yeah, my lifetime. This is relevant data. But here’s a funny
thing about factoring. If somebody actually
told you the answer, somebody said, I think
the answer might be this, and they just gave you
two 100-digit numbers, you would be surprised that
they solved the problem. But you can check to
see if they’re are right or not, because if you’ve
got these 100-digit numbers, you can times them
together and see if you get that 200-number
you’re supposed to get. So factoring has this sort
of funny thing about it. It’s hard to do, but if somebody
tells you what the answer is, it’s very easy to check,
because multiplying is easy. So factoring, it seems
to be hard to do, but it’s definitely
easy to check. And the notion of a
problem being easy to check turned out to be
another central notion in modern computational
complexity theory. So we got a name. Np is the collection of
all problems for which we can check a solution is correct
very quickly, by which I mean in polynomial time. So I’ve defined two
classes of problems. P is the class of problems
we can solve quickly, and NP, the class of problems
that, if somebody tells you what they think
the answer is, you can check if they’re right
or wrong very quickly. So there’s subtle differences,
but different they are. So every problem in p is an NP. All the problems you
can solve quickly, you can check the
answer quickly, because if you’ve got your
p problem that you can solve quickly, and somebody says,
oh, I think I know the solution and they give you
the solution, you can check it by just solving
the problem yourself. You solve the problem
yourself to see if you get the same answer. So any problem in
p is also in NP. But unfortunately there’s
plenty of NP problems, problems that we can check
the answers quickly but which we don’t know
how to solve them quickly. So this raises a question. So here are some
examples of NP problems, problems which we
can check quickly, which are not known to be in p. So factoring large numbers. I’ve mentioned that already. We don’t know how
to do that quickly. But if someone tells
you what the answer is, we can do it quickly. Timetable exams,
unfortunately, turns out to be another problem. And in general problems
of that nature, I’ve had three kids going
to secondary school, and the way it works is the
council sends you a form, and you fill in the
form, and this is in like November or something. You send in the form, and
then the glorious news comes out where your kid’s
going to secondary school on the 1st of March. And why does that
take four months? It’s because trying
to figure out a way of fitting every
11-year-old in the country into a school so
that there’s just the right number of
students in each school is really, really hard. So there’s examples
all over science. I just took these
things off the computer. I’ve got no idea what
any of those things mean, but they looked very important,
so I thought I’d mention them. This one I do know
what it means. Decrypting data sent. We have a standard way to
send data to a secure website to secure a website where we are
typing in credit card numbers to buy things on the internet. And decrypting that
without the decryption key is something we don’t know
how to do very quickly. But this is in NP. There’s various other
things Candy Crush is an NP. Pokemon also an NP. Super Mario Bros also an NP. Basically trying to solve
a Super Mario Bros level is very hard. But if somebody comes
along and does it, you can clearly check
that they’ve done it because I got to the end. So we don’t know a
fast method for solving any of those problems. But we know a fast method
for checking the answers. So there are examples
of problems that are NP. They’re in NP, but we
don’t know if they’re in p. So there’s the question. Does p equal NP? If we have a problem,
and it turns out we can check to see if the
solution is correct quickly, could we actually have
solved the problem quickly in the first place without
knowing what the solution was? I’m doing all right. I thought I was
going to overrun. I’m doing great. So there you go. By 1971, Stephen Cook had
formalised this notion. And he raised this question
explicitly in 1971, having laid down some
mathematical background. So he’d given a rigorous
mathematical notion of what a problem was,
of what the solution was, and the class of
problems that are in p and the class of
problems that are in NP. There’s lots of mathematics and
rigour that I’m suppressing, but he did it, and he raised
this question explicitly. And then the year
after he failed to get tenure at UC Berkeley,
because computers in 1971 were really irrelevant. So it’s an abstract,
well-defined mathematical question. And it was an unsolved problem
that the mathematicians at UC Berkeley decided was
of peripheral interest. But you’ve seen now the kind
of implications that solving this problem might have. And it’s now regarded as one
of the most important problems in mathematics. Is one of the seven “Clay
Millennium Problems.” So if you solve it,
some entrepreneur has donated a million
bucks as motivation to try and solve these problems. So we’ve got the problems in p. They’re in there. We have problems in NP. And then the question
is, is there actually definitely a problem that’s
lurking where that question mark is that’s in NP,
you can check quickly but it’s definitely not in p. So we know plenty of
problems that are in p, and we know plenty of
problems that are in NP, and we don’t know if
they’re in p or not. But that’s the current
state of our knowledge. So what would happen if somebody
proved that p equaled an NP? Because mathematicians
are working– mathematicians, theorists,
computer scientists, working very hard
on this problem. What would happen if
somebody proved p was NP. Then all of a sudden a
whole bunch of problems which we didn’t
know how to solve, suddenly we could solve very,
very quickly using a computer. So suddenly transportation
get scheduled optimally. We save lots of fuel. People and goods move
around quicker and cheaper. Factories become
infinitely more efficient. Dramatic advances in
medicine, because suddenly we can cure cancer. I don’t know if we
can cure cancer. We could certainly do
much quicker experiments. Perfect computer vision,
computer language recognition. So you see the problem. It wasn’t very important
in 1971, but predictions of weather and of earthquakes. Huge advances in
modern mathematics, because solving a
mathematical problem is a great example of
something that’s an NP. How you work on a
problem, I can’t do it. There’s lots of axioms. I don’t know which to– I don’t know how to apply them
or what order to apply them in. But if somebody comes along
and hands me a proof of this, you know, if someone says,
I can prove the thing. I can sort out the
thing you’re working on, here’s the question
you are working on, here’s a proof of it. I can read the proof
really quickly. I can check that that’s
a mathematical proof. That’s part of my training. So I can check the answer
quickly, and so if p was NP, I can solve the problem quickly. So we can just get computers
to do lots and lots and in modern mathematics. It also means, of course, there
is no such thing as encryption anymore. So the government can
read all your emails, even if you encrypt them. And internet security
is now broken. You can’t type your credit
card into the internet, so online banks instantly,
everything gets– So society really changes. The internet stops working,
but maybe we can cure cancer. But the world would be
a very different place. Unfortunately, or
possibly fortunately, most computer scientists believe
that p is not equal to NP. They believe that there are
problems out there which are easy to check but
hard to solve, easy to check the solutions
but hard to solve. So what would
happen if we proved that p was not equal to NP? Then we know then
these guaranteed– we have algorithms
which we now guarantee can’t be solved quickly. Now, we definitely know
we can talk in code. So I know that the
government can’t spy on me. That’s really good. And terrorists also
know that the government can’t spy on them. And all the people that are
currently selling illegal drugs and weapons on the
dark internet– and that really is
happening– they can sit comfortably knowing full
well that they can definitely not be traced. So again, the world
changes a little bit. And this is currently
the working model right. Theresa May was very,
very upset about there was an iPhone story. You remember some guy, there
was incriminating evidence on his iPhone, but they
couldn’t unlock it, and Apple said they
weren’t going to unlock it. The problem resolved itself, but
that’s the tip of the iceberg. More will happen. Again, there will
be police officers that know full well that there’s
an encrypted drive that if they could decrypt, then
this guy is nailed. But they can’t decrypt it. If p is an NP, we
can design code that can be possible to break. So it should be clear that it’s
clearly important to work out p is NP or not, right? So all the problems
in p are in NP. But the question is, are there
problems in NP but not in p? If you tell me this is
your problem in class p, we said all this already. So this is the point. I’m going to tell you the point. How does a mathematician– so
p probably isn’t equal to NP, so how is a mathematician
going to prove that? And this is the point. All they have to do is
they have to find something in that question. They have to find a
problem which is in np. We can check the answer quickly. But they have to prove that
this problem cannot be solved quickly. That’s what the problem is. And we’re not yet
at the stage where we have the theoretical
tools to do that. This is the issue. We have to prove that
you can’t do something, and we could only prove you
could do things in the 70s, so when are we going
to be able to prove that you can’t do things? So here’s the time frame
now, the third example of doing things and
not doing things. Nash formulated the question,
gave easy examples of problems that could be solved quickly. Cook formalises the mathematics,
raises the question explicitly, and then we don’t
know what happens. Somebody at some point
probably will find an example of a problem where they can
check answers quickly but they can prove that you
cannot solve it quickly. But we are not yet there. It took 2,000 years
for the Euclid one. How long will this take? So many modern mathematical
techniques have been tried. All have failed. There was a promising
approach developed initially in 2001, and then really
prominently in 2011, using geometric
complexity theory. And again, it follows
exactly the same pattern as the other things. This used modern
algebraic geometry, which was only
invented in the 1960s, and modern
representation theory. So using these very,
very modern techniques that weren’t around for
people like Cook and Nash. Geometric complexity
theory was an attempt to resolve this question. But the big
breakthrough in April last year was a team
of people proved that actually the path
that we were following using geometric complexity
theory to prove that p was not in NP, they proved
that it would not work. So you see mathematicians
are good at proving that things don’t happen. But in this case it wasn’t
proving that p wasn’t in NP. It was proving that our idea
is even sort of meta meta. The strategy of
proof cannot succeed. So there you go. So that’s the end of the talk. How do we prove that we can’t
solve a problem quickly? Currently we don’t
have the answer. So thank you. [APPLAUSE]

What Computers Can’t Do – with Kevin Buzzard
Tagged on:                                                     

100 thoughts on “What Computers Can’t Do – with Kevin Buzzard

  • February 22, 2019 at 7:21 am
    Permalink

    the traveling salesman is said to be NP
    how do you quickly check a suggested path is optimal
    should there not be a set of problems outside NP that can not be solved or checked quickly

    Reply
  • March 12, 2019 at 10:48 pm
    Permalink

    ummmmmmmmm DARPA runs an open contest where AI systems compete to analyze and patch other software…. professor funnypants didn't do his homework

    Reply
  • March 13, 2019 at 11:16 am
    Permalink

    Google might not have killer robots, but it has AlphaZero. So most of that talk about Kasparov vs. Deep Blue was just obsolete a year later (i.e. in 2018), when that evolution of computers in chess reached a level beyond human comprehension.

    Reply
  • March 13, 2019 at 12:24 pm
    Permalink

    35:55 "So we've seen an example in mathematics, and we've seen an example in theoretical compuTer science – theoretical compuTer science with a capital T"

    Reply
  • March 13, 2019 at 12:54 pm
    Permalink

    If you have any problem and just guess a solution and that is the correct solution, and you can prove it quickly, doesn't that also mean that you can solve it quickly in theory by just guessing in every single case? Not in practice, but in theory.

    Reply
  • March 13, 2019 at 1:03 pm
    Permalink

    I don't understand why trisecting doesn't work? You would just need to create a number that is a multiple of 360 copies of that figure in a circle until the figures overlap exactly, and then the rest is a trivial matter of looking what is the number at which they perfectly overlap and then simply use basic math to find any x-secting lines?

    The only issue you have is just to have those figures so independent that you can still keep them apart, and not just have a single mess on the paper.

    Reply
  • March 14, 2019 at 7:11 am
    Permalink

    You get a million bucks if you tell the Clay group the proof. It's probably worth more than that if you don't. A lot of companies would pay big money to have a headstart on mapping out the implications.

    There's a very bad SF movie about this called "The Traveling Salesman".

    Proving it's not true probably isn't worth as much.

    Reply
  • March 15, 2019 at 11:00 pm
    Permalink

    An infinite loop is not a crash, a crash happens when the computer program cannot continue. Having accidentaly written infinite loops into programs that ran for over 6 days and only stopped because the operators needed to shut the machine down for weekly maintenance I can guarantee an infinite loop is NOT a crash.

    Reply
  • March 17, 2019 at 1:15 am
    Permalink

    It’s almost paradoxical. The P vs NP problem is an NP problem 🤣

    Reply
  • March 17, 2019 at 2:52 am
    Permalink

    1. Atanasoff & Berry constructed and operated the FIRST electronic digital computer at Iowa State University from 1939-1942.

    Nobody was interested in the least.

    2. Turing's proof that the "Halting Problem" was impossible to solve has this (not too obvious corollary): It is impossible to predict the result of an algorithm (computer program) without actually running the program. If this is not clear to you, think about it for a few minutes and it will suddenly clarify itself.

    3. Programs that can run in Polynomial Time may sound like they are computable IN PRACTICE, but this is not really true. Example: Suppose that a program with N (at least 10) as an input runs in N^(9999) time [N to the power 9999] then it will prove to be insoluble in practice since 10^(9999) Planck time units is far longer than the lifetime of the Universe so far. In the real world, depending upon the program, a program that runs in Linear time (power 1) is nearly always (with obvious exceptions) able to finish, while a program that runs in Polynomial Time where the degree of the polynomial is larger than 10 or so, will never get done. From a PRACTICAL point of view, a program that runs in Polynomial Time may very well be intractable, even when the degree of the polynomial is fairly small.

    Reply
  • March 18, 2019 at 2:56 am
    Permalink

    around 50:00 Yes, computers cannot solve EVERY problem, but for the class of problems that can be solved by computers, they work well enough for use as a tool to solve those problems and save true consciousness to focus on other aspects of the higher dimensional problem.

    Reply
  • March 18, 2019 at 1:33 pm
    Permalink

    Player versus non player? that's called pve! Lol.

    Reply
  • March 18, 2019 at 5:41 pm
    Permalink

    It's nice that he personally doesn't think computers "think", but the terminology is horribly vague, and the way humans think is poorly understood.

    Reply
  • March 18, 2019 at 9:48 pm
    Permalink

    Run in a loop : abs(ln(n)) Start with n=2 & reinject the result in the formula & so on . Can you tell the value after a million step without running it ? Does it ever stop ? Does it repeat itself ?

    Reply
  • March 19, 2019 at 1:09 am
    Permalink

    Are humans really thinking, though? I don't think humans are thinking, either, at least not in any different sort of ways from a computer.
    This Radiolab story about a lady who had transient global amnesia, which put her into a loop with an iteration of about 90 seconds: https://youtu.be/GxmP4zRvi7U?t=368
    She ends up having the same conversation with her daughter, over and over. Is she a machine?

    Reply
  • March 20, 2019 at 6:56 am
    Permalink

    Those trousers! 8-0

    Reply
  • March 20, 2019 at 10:38 pm
    Permalink

    As a direct result of watching this, I finally understand how “secure” internet connections could ever possibly work, even a little bit, despite the fact that in order for the internet to work in most cases, you need to trust a bunch of strangers (computers) to pass your communications along to their destination. This problem has bugged me for a very long time.

    Reply
  • March 21, 2019 at 4:38 am
    Permalink

    If a robot is not designed to kill humans but does so my accident is it not still a killer robot?

    Reply
  • March 22, 2019 at 5:32 pm
    Permalink

    A divided by Zero equals NOT A where A is unrelated to NOT A except at superposition. P=NP? P divided by Zero equals NP.

    Reply
  • March 22, 2019 at 11:34 pm
    Permalink

    fINALLY SOMEONE SPEAKING TRUTH ABOUT AI

    Reply
  • March 23, 2019 at 1:30 am
    Permalink

    That's quite a choice in trousers to wear for a lecture at the Royal Institution

    Reply
  • March 23, 2019 at 11:25 am
    Permalink

    Mr. Buzzard is trying to show that you can also prove things by talking about them very very quickly.

    Reply
  • March 23, 2019 at 8:51 pm
    Permalink

    I feel like this is andrew riddle who was really into math and didn’t get an owl.

    Reply
  • March 24, 2019 at 12:48 pm
    Permalink

    The first part of the talk, about computers' ability to think, was disconnected, ungrounded and actually never addressed. And by the way, it's been a long time since AI had to resolve to brute force. Given the level of the rest of the talk I think he knows that, which make the argument disingenuous.
    However the rest was very nicely exposed, and it is the very first time I see a convincing explanation about asymmetrical operations.

    Reply
  • March 24, 2019 at 3:01 pm
    Permalink

    A 4 GHz processor does not process 4 billion instructions per second. You need to look into the CPI and do the maths.

    Reply
  • March 24, 2019 at 4:51 pm
    Permalink

    Ada Lovelace actually died at 37.

    Reply
  • March 24, 2019 at 8:04 pm
    Permalink

    Those were his laundry trousers.

    Reply
  • March 25, 2019 at 5:49 am
    Permalink

    I'm a professional computer programmer. Let's just say that most people who've been educated in this field who, despite this, still say they believe computers can actually think (in any practical sense) tend to do so more out of fanciful wishing paired with misunderstandings of what sentience even is and/or due to ideological reasons (e.g. attacking people who believe in the human soul by using misleading, deceptive, unsupportable memes like "brains are just biological computers" as their weapon of choice).

    Reply
  • March 25, 2019 at 6:46 am
    Permalink

    29:00 Java fixes all of this.

    Reply
  • March 25, 2019 at 6:51 am
    Permalink

    38:40 for the happy ending.

    Reply
  • March 25, 2019 at 4:41 pm
    Permalink

    hi there , i'm amir . can you check out my video please https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYxh-E6jrOs&t=11s

    i'm waiting for your comments . thank you

    Reply
  • March 25, 2019 at 7:07 pm
    Permalink

    It seems that Turing took a page (so to speak) from Godel; by feeding a program into itself, he in essence created a self-referential loop that exposed the hidden flaw in the assumption (in this case, that one could write a program to tell good programs from bad.) Pretty zarking brilliant, if you ask me! The man was certainly a genius. It's too bad that his society judged him not on his mind, but on his personal life [he was gay.] I only hope we can do better. So far though… Thanks for the great vid! Rikki Tikki.

    Reply
  • March 25, 2019 at 8:59 pm
    Permalink

    This man seems to have no clue about computers or humans at all. All he does is state his opinions of half truth and believes without any science to back it up. It is easily possible to present counter arguments and contradict him in nearly every sentence …
    He seems more like a philosophy guy who talks out of his arse than a neurologist or computer scientist.

    Reply
  • March 25, 2019 at 10:22 pm
    Permalink

    Boston Dynamics "Big Dog" is designed to be a robotic pack animal, not to kill things. It's no more a killer than a burro.

    Reply
  • March 25, 2019 at 11:38 pm
    Permalink

    As an extra note: If you're looking for prime factors, then as you are testing whether a divisor is composite or not, the shortcut is that you have to test only up to the square root of the number you are factoring. e.g. SQR (100) = 10, which means to find all prime factors for 100, all you have to do is test the prime numbers between 2 and 10 (2, 3, 5, 7) And that's GAG (Good As Gold)

    Reply
  • March 26, 2019 at 9:44 am
    Permalink

    To trisect any angle using a compass and a ruler use:
    let angle = 90;

    let trisect = 0;

    for (i=1;i<100;i++) {

    angle = angle / 2;

    if (i%2==0) {

    trisect = trisect – angle;

    }else {

    trisect = trisect + angle;

    }

    }

    console.log(trisect);

    Reply
  • March 26, 2019 at 9:26 pm
    Permalink

    What is he saying?

    Reply
  • March 27, 2019 at 3:25 am
    Permalink

    i find it kinda scary but also really cool that we have to ask this question

    Reply
  • March 28, 2019 at 12:01 am
    Permalink

    A lot of the information presented here was either wrong or misleading, or even just an opinion.

    First, P vs. NP doesn't technically refer to the algorithm used to solve a problem. Rather, P is the set of problems which can be verified in polynomial time with a deterministic algorithm (one input can only be processed one specific way) versus NP – the set of problems verifiable in polynomial time with a non-deterministic algorithm.

    Example: the brute force algorithm used to factor around 51:00 is clearly O(n) which is polynomial time. Not only that, but it is verifiable in O(1) time with a deterministic algorithm. Many modern factorization algorithms use non-determinism to achieve expected run times of O(log(n))

    Reply
  • March 28, 2019 at 11:15 am
    Permalink

    we can write a program that finds loops, its called a debugger, right? isn't this basic computer programming? also we can write "loop detection" into subroutines in the debuggers, we can safeguard them by setting the iterations. These loops that he says are problematic can be if you don't know what you are doing but please do some reading on how an accumulation buffer works when a computer game does full scene motion blur. If you know how to handle your loops it can be totally safe. at 36 minutes it really feels like the guy is about to launch into the next part of his argument after having asserted some really flawed logic. That said I will watch on because I feel like he is driving at a greater point, and I feel like I might be focusing on the detail and missing the argument Kevin is trying to make. Oh and by the way that I'm taking the time to make a massive response if a key indicator that I really care about what I am watching, I will go back to watching 🙂

    Reply
  • March 28, 2019 at 8:59 pm
    Permalink

    "… heat death of the universe…"

    Multivac, how can we reverse entropy?
    Insufficient data for meaningful answer.

    Reply
  • March 28, 2019 at 9:12 pm
    Permalink

    This guy needs to slow down 😀

    Reply
  • March 28, 2019 at 10:36 pm
    Permalink

    To find a definitive answer to the question does P=NP. One must first understand the limitations of the system in question. In the case of computers, current technology has its limitations but future technology may have different capabilities and limitations, perhaps less, which then changes the equation but not necessarily changing the answer. Regardless, we must ask the question and find the answer to know for sure.

    Reply
  • March 29, 2019 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    Slow down buddy… youll catch on fire and burn those sexy pants

    Reply
  • March 29, 2019 at 7:20 pm
    Permalink

    My favorite part of all these shows is Mike's table….

    Reply
  • March 30, 2019 at 11:08 am
    Permalink

    Many a genius have similar. They think faster than the brain can process.

    Reply
  • March 31, 2019 at 8:56 am
    Permalink

    It's quite confusing for regular people to claim that's it's "what computers can't do".

    It's more general than that, it's about the limits of computing and logical processes, it also applies to humans which in technical terms are also computers (as in, we compute data).

    Reply
  • April 1, 2019 at 7:45 am
    Permalink

    Five minutes was enough and noe I will carry on watching paint dry

    Reply
  • April 1, 2019 at 12:52 pm
    Permalink

    As far as i can remember that "killer robot" is ment to be "just" a transporter thingie, replacing a mule/horse/camel (or human) carying heavy objects on terrain where regular 4WD vehicles can't go, no weapons added (for now)…
    We have way more effective (and likely cheaper/less complex=less worry if they get shot down) flying killer robots-drones.

    Reply
  • April 1, 2019 at 12:57 pm
    Permalink

    "What would a company need, to make a killer robot?"- A licence to kill.

    Reply
  • April 1, 2019 at 4:33 pm
    Permalink

    Whenever someone say "well a computer can't do this!" it usually doesn't take long before someone makes a computer do it. This won't be an exception.

    Reply
  • April 1, 2019 at 5:37 pm
    Permalink

    I would throw a system of inequalities at the program at 30

    Reply
  • April 3, 2019 at 4:28 pm
    Permalink

    "We do not know." is a very unsatisfying answer.

    Reply
  • April 3, 2019 at 11:03 pm
    Permalink

    First of all, why would anyone want to kill another human beeing?

    Reply
  • April 5, 2019 at 9:44 am
    Permalink

    But you could trisect by making half angles 3 times. That'll be messy and hard but can be done by compass and ruler just use a large angle and different colors and it'll make sense. For small angles, you'd have to be very careful. Even the half angle can be very tricky for small angles!

    Reply
  • April 6, 2019 at 2:36 am
    Permalink

    I think it gets stuck at Otherwise.

    Reply
  • April 6, 2019 at 5:56 am
    Permalink

    Super Mario Brothers is obviously in P.

    Reply
  • April 6, 2019 at 7:41 am
    Permalink

    The term "thinking" seems to me to be too vague to give a definitive yes/no response.
    Reasoning by a machine is possible.

    Human reasoning and turning it into code is where it falls apart. So, asking for the impossible a machine wouldn't be able to decide no matter what.

    For example tiling a plane is a perceptual problem that requires imagination to provide an answer.

    Reply
  • April 6, 2019 at 8:07 am
    Permalink

    1940 konrad zuse completed the Z2

    spreadsheets can detect circular references. (but only if they aren't obfuscated using concatenation)

    If quantum computers become useful then it wouldn't necessarily be the P=NP? problem that caused internet commerce to break.

    Reply
  • April 6, 2019 at 11:12 am
    Permalink

    This talk is so confused, misinformed and misleading it's embarrassing 🙁

    Reply
  • April 6, 2019 at 8:13 pm
    Permalink

    Voted down as soon as he called the Mule a killer robot, then clicked away.

    Reply
  • April 8, 2019 at 9:19 pm
    Permalink

    8:53 According to the Wikipedia article on Deep Blue, it used an algorithm called alpha-beta pruning, which allowed it to ignore branches where its opponent would absolutely take advantage of mistakes. I know it's a small point, but it seems to be essential to your argument that the computer wasn't really thinking.

    I downvoted this video partly because of small stuff like that, but also because of larger problems like how you don't give a formal definition of thought. If you don't have a proper definition, how can you be sure that computers can't do it? And if you aren't sure, why was it included in this talk?

    That said, this was still interesting food for thought. Thanks.

    Reply
  • April 9, 2019 at 11:51 pm
    Permalink

    Am I the only one who still wants the "last 2 slides" with jokes?

    Reply
  • April 11, 2019 at 12:34 am
    Permalink

    Make the speed at 0.75 , Thank me later

    Reply
  • April 12, 2019 at 9:24 am
    Permalink

    No you don't. You need data on one person to make a killer robot. The rest is public domain. It will happen. Give it 10-15 years.

    Reply
  • April 13, 2019 at 3:40 pm
    Permalink

    Not fair to Boston dynamics when they are explicitly against working on killer robots.

    Reply
  • April 16, 2019 at 4:26 am
    Permalink

    41:26 what if the user types in 0? This still prints 1 zero

    Reply
  • April 28, 2019 at 11:47 pm
    Permalink

    Those robots aren't killer robots… they are mostly designed to assist troops by bringing them supplies.

    Reply
  • May 1, 2019 at 11:08 pm
    Permalink

    I could program that app in 2 weeks, including the drone control ,face recognition etc.., it hasn't been done cos is immoral and illegal.

    Reply
  • May 2, 2019 at 4:15 am
    Permalink

    Algorithm at ~29:25 gets stuck in a loop if x=10.

    Reply
  • May 11, 2019 at 3:41 pm
    Permalink

    So the proof that P≠NP is in NP.
    Or is it?

    My money is on the relation being one of those undecidable things.

    Reply
  • May 14, 2019 at 6:51 am
    Permalink

    Oh ! poor camera operators following this guy arround the stage for one hour…

    Reply
  • May 15, 2019 at 3:52 pm
    Permalink

    @41:29
    The expanded version of program 2 has a bug!

    Reply
  • May 15, 2019 at 8:34 pm
    Permalink

    So many fallacies in this lecture. For example, getting stuck in an infinite loop is not the same as crashing. A crash is an unexpected exit. An infinite loop never exits. They are two completely different issues. Actually in fact they are opposites in a way.
    Another: I can tie knots in a string for several minutes that can be unravelled in a few seconds.

    Reply
  • May 17, 2019 at 9:22 pm
    Permalink

    this guy propably was behind that one black mirror ep with the boston dynamics killer robots

    Reply
  • May 18, 2019 at 10:31 pm
    Permalink

    Suddenly I'm taking my Google+ account VERY seriously.

    Reply
  • May 19, 2019 at 10:02 pm
    Permalink

    What about AI that learns? Alpha Go, for example?

    Reply
  • May 26, 2019 at 3:45 pm
    Permalink

    Where can I find those pants?

    Reply
  • May 28, 2019 at 11:19 am
    Permalink

    … his bipedal cloth covering is distracting …

    Reply
  • June 10, 2019 at 9:25 pm
    Permalink

    holy shit! Joe Satriani has taken off his sun glasses!

    Reply
  • June 16, 2019 at 11:55 am
    Permalink

    Best operational research lecture ever.. I had a course @university and had a crush on the topic but never had a chance to think to it in these terms. Amazing lecture.simple yet perfectly explaining examples. I'll suggest to collegues

    Reply
  • June 19, 2019 at 6:31 am
    Permalink

    Dude walked 10K laps around that damn table.

    Reply
  • June 19, 2019 at 9:53 am
    Permalink

    Great speaker, very energetic which is what you need when dealing with complex and dry subjects.

    Reply
  • June 21, 2019 at 11:01 pm
    Permalink

    Proving that you can write a program that can get stuck isnt the same as proving that you can't write a program that doesn't get stuck.
    Btw. humans (and other biological organisms) can also get stuck – motivation is the only thing preventing people from that.
    Pigeons can get stuck, put multiple pigeons in a skinner box, there is good chance that some of said pigeon will do random stuff (like flapping its wings) while an othrr pigeon ttiggers the rewards. And then said pigeon gets stuck brlieving that it needs toflap its wings to get rewarded. If an other pigeon triggers the reward while its still desperately flapping, it will be even more sure.

    Same thing can easily happen with humans.
    The only thing preventing a true infinite loop is death – but then computers break too.

    Reply
  • June 23, 2019 at 5:12 pm
    Permalink

    Konrad Zuse 1936, hold my beer 🙂 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z1_(computer)

    Reply
  • July 11, 2019 at 8:13 am
    Permalink

    Without a clear negative proof, it seems premature to make claims about what computers cannot do. It is certainly clear that modern that neural network systems are capable of transcending classic brute-force algorithmic analysis. The game of go, for example, famously cannot be algorithmically brute forced. And some of the problems he mentions fall squarely in the domain of quantum computer applications.

    Reply
  • July 24, 2019 at 8:19 pm
    Permalink

    do not understand the mathemtics but am aware of the implications. got ample words for it.

    Reply
  • July 25, 2019 at 4:17 am
    Permalink

    Encryption is solved with strange entanglement. Instant knowledge of breeches,and where.

    Reply
  • July 29, 2019 at 3:13 am
    Permalink

    It seems to me that it would be easy to invent a computer controlled armored machine that kills everything. The difficult thing would be trying to get it to make decisions on who to kill and who to leave alone. Too many variables. (i.e. Self driving cars that can handle every scenario is a similar problem)

    Reply
  • August 11, 2019 at 4:27 pm
    Permalink

    If one looks at the history of self driving cars, at least the early iterations, it could be argued that they qualify as "killer robots". It's just that the killing part and the target part are pretty much random.

    Reply
  • August 18, 2019 at 5:48 am
    Permalink

    The number 0 wasnt invented in the 1800's by the greeks , It was there way way before and invented by the indians … as unlike just stories trigonometry was part of there religion ..

    Reply
  • August 28, 2019 at 7:34 am
    Permalink

    A computer would not wear those pants. That's for sure.

    Reply
  • September 24, 2019 at 7:30 am
    Permalink

    Great lecture! But the position at 6:54 ist not a Sicilian.

    Reply
  • October 5, 2019 at 2:57 pm
    Permalink

    The idea that proving P=NP true would lead to all these shocking consequences (e.g. encryption breaking) assumes that any proof of P=NP would be 'constructive' i.e. that the proof itself would outline how (construct) we could quickly prove (move to P) something that's quickly verifiable (NP). This would be some general schema or framework applicable to any NP problem, like a computer program.

    Proofs, however, needn't be constructive: they needn't actually design some process to achieve the desired outcome but, rather, show its truth based on general principles. Mathematicians don't all agree that a P=NP proof would necessarily be constructive.

    So, even if P=NP is proven to be true, if the proof is non-constructive then we needn't immediately worry about chaos ensuing. Designing methods for 'cracking' individual NP problems might take an unreasonably long time (indeed, we've failed to do so for many basic ones so far e.g. factoring), so the impact would be limited.

    Reply
  • October 5, 2019 at 3:58 pm
    Permalink

    On the video it is suggested that Deep Blue was brute forcingly going through even "silly" configurations in its search, but that would have been a gross understatement and a harsh insult against the Deep Blue engineering team. Reality was very far on the contrary – Deep Blue software was running the most sophisticated levels of chess search algorithms at the time, which certainly did not spend time looking at silly configurations. Of course even the fact that Deep Blue used an efficient and well researched chess search algorithm does not dispute or alter the point that the lecturer was making about the question whether the computer was "thinking" or not.

    Reply
  • October 11, 2019 at 5:05 am
    Permalink

    The BIG 0!

    Reply
  • October 13, 2019 at 2:41 pm
    Permalink

    the finger is as powerful as the pen. Every pen or nom de plume is a finger…

    Reply
  • October 14, 2019 at 8:05 am
    Permalink

    Awful. Did he ever get to P vs NP.? I couldn't stand listening to him. I had to stop listening after 20 minutes of torture.

    Reply
  • October 16, 2019 at 1:33 am
    Permalink

    sorry, he lost al credibility with the pants, pop culture hipster science, tri-oxymoronic diatribe

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *