This facts are killing me

"During his own Google interview, Jeff Dean was asked the implications if P=NP were true. He said, "P = 0 or N = 1." Then, before the interviewer had even finished laughing, Jeff examined Google’s public certificate and wrote the private key on the whiteboard."

"Compilers don't warn Jeff Dean. Jeff Dean warns compilers."

"gcc -O4 emails your code to Jeff Dean for a rewrite."

"When Jeff Dean sends an ethernet frame there are no collisions because the competing frames retreat back up into the buffer memory on their source nic."

"When Jeff Dean has an ergonomic evaluation, it is for the protection of his keyboard."

"When Jeff Dean designs software, he first codes the binary and then writes the source as documentation."

"When Jeff has trouble sleeping, he Mapreduces sheep."

"When Jeff Dean listens to mp3s, he just cats them to /dev/dsp and does the decoding in his head."

"Google search went down for a few hours in 2002, and Jeff Dean started handling queries by hand. Search Quality doubled."

"One day Jeff Dean grabbed his Etch-a-Sketch instead of his laptop on his way out the door. On his way back home to get his real laptop, he programmed the Etch-a-Sketch to play Tetris."

"Jeff Dean once shifted a bit so hard, it ended up on another computer. "

When I think "the fundamental problem", the closest thing that comes to my mind is "unsolvable problem". P =/!= NP is a fundamental problem, the theory of everything is a fundamental problem.

But we actually solved at least one such problem – the fundamental problem of cryptography.

The problem was "how to establish a secure connection over a non-secure channel?" Like you can't exchange the key, it'll be exposed by definition.

We solved it with a simple yet brilliant solution of asymmetrical cypher, that thing with public and private keys.

It's fascinating to think that people died in WW2 over this, there were special operations to deliver fresh deciphering keys securely and now SSH and HTTPS are no-brainers that literally everyone use.

P vs NP

What’s your worst pickup lines for devs?

How about this:
When my dick gets hard, it gets as hard as NP hard.

P=NP if someone else is paying for the AWS computing time...

So its here now

P! = NP

Meanwhile ...

"One small change, just put the locations in GPS order."

Oh god da faq is gps order.

He means, insert a solution to the traveling salesman problem. He thinks, it's as easy as alphabetical ordering.

Fml

Is thinking about P=NP kinda like thinking about "the game"?

At least thinking about P=NP is useful for thinking about the nature of things.

Congrats on winning the game btw.

P != NP

Unpopular opinion: P=NP

When the pen testers find a "vulnerability" and say it would be very difficult for someone to exploit it. Yeah, in that case they might as well say if you solve p vs np you can break it but it would be very difficult.

If transistors switched as fast as your ex left you, we’d become a galactic civilization even without P = NP.

P=NP

Change my mind.

is p = np or p≠np ?

🤕 what do you think?
want to bet on it?

On science and religion. Inspied by a comment in another rant, credits to @Commodore and @cjbatz

According to Godel's incompletness theorems, aritmetics is incomplete and inconsistent. Therefore, any science based on aritmetics (dude, like, every) is also.
Therfore, as a mathematician, I must accept that there are things that cannot be proven by current science, and that there are statements that are true and false at the same time in current science.

So, science can't prove religious beliefs? It cant prove P vs NP either. It might someday. Science couldn't prove earth wasn't flat for a looong time. Or Pythagoras theorem.
But more importantly, if science can prove something, doesn't mean it can't prove the exact oposite.

This way of thinking allows for any and all ridiculous beliefs, under the shield of "it might be proven one day" or "doent't mean opposite isn't true also" but kerp in mind that there are complete and consistent sciences and proofs in them. Check if something's been proven to exist or not exist without doubt.

Okay... Complexity Theory.
Polynomial time
Nondeterministic Polynomial time

If not now, when you first learned of P and NP, it's time for you to share what you thought P and NP were acronyms for.

I know it a strange thing to ask but I need help with English grammar ( I am not a English native)

I am doing an assignment on context free grammar program.

What the program need to do it "Produce a grammar tree based on the rule"

For example a sentence "Jame sat.", It will need to produce a grammar tree like this.

S
_____|___
NP VP
| |
N V
| |
holmes sat

The only thing I need to do it give a grammar rule to the program like this

S -> NP VP
NP -> N | Det N
VP -> V | NP

What the above rule said is that the sentence is composed of Noun Phrase and Verb Phrase and Noun Phrase is either is a Noun or a determiner and Noun.

Now here is the meat of the question.

I am having trouble parsing a grammar tree for this sentence "She never said a word until we were at the door here"

I have provided my grammar rule below. I think I forget to add some grammar rule or some of my grammar rule are incorrect. I am not a native English speaker so I am having trouble on it.

The search engine have fail me (I have look up various grammar tree) so I am asking for help on devrant. Grammar nazi are warmly welcome :)

S -> NP VP | S Conj VP | S Conj S

NP -> N | Det NP | N PP | Adj N | Det Adj N | Det N

PP | Det NOM | Det N PP

VP -> V | V NP | V NP PP | V PP | V NP PP Adv

VP -> Adv V NP | VP PP | VP AVP | V PP PP | V
ADJP

PP -> P NP

AVP -> Adv | Adv Adj | Adv AVP

NOM -> Adj Adj N | Adj N | Adj NP

ADJP -> Adj | Adj PP

**I am not sure about these two clause below**
VP -> V | Adv
NP -> Adj Adj N

I am trying to decompose a 3D matrix using python library scikit-tensor. I managed to decompose my Tensor (with dimensions 100x50x5) into three matrices. My question is how can I compose the initial matrix again using the decomposed matrix produced with Tensor factorization? I want to check if the decomposition has any meaning. My code is the following:

import logging

from scipy.io.matlab import loadmat

from sktensor import dtensor, cp_als

import numpy as np

//Set logging to DEBUG to see CP-ALS information

logging.basicConfig(level=logging.DEBUG)

T = np.ones((400, 50))

T = dtensor(T)

P, fit, itr, exectimes = cp_als(T, 10, init='random')

// how can I re-compose the Matrix T? TA = np.dot(P.U[0], P.U[1].T)

I am using the canonical decomposition as provided from the scikit-tensor library function cp_als. Also what is the expected dimensionality of the decomposed matrices.