Travelling Salesman Page #2

---

not los Alamos.

Wait, what'd you say?

Hmm? What,

"this is certainly not los..."

No, no, no.

Before that.

Oh. I do wonder

what it's like

- To, you know, live in a...

- Right, right.

Live in a desert.

Hugh, what are some

characteristics

Of a desert?

It's hot.

Right, yeah, and what else?

No water.

No rain.

Cactuses or... Cactus.

Cacti.

- Sand.

- Sure.

Millions of grains of sand.

What if I, uh,

I took something,

Like a-A quid coin, okay?

And I buried it in the sand.

It's buried,

you have no idea where it is,

And I ask you to find it.

How long would that take you?

Well...

Years, right?

I mean, millions of years,

If the desert were big enough.

Sure.

What if I melted the sand?

Took all the sand in the desert

and melted it.

Glass.

The whole desert

becomes one big sheet of glass.

So now, finding the coin

is easy, right?

You just...

You see it floating there.

Change the sand to glass,

And finding the coin

is trivial.

Hugh, I think you're

gonna need to leave now.

Oh, yes.

No, seriously, I think

you really need to leave.

What do you think?

What do you think?

I'm sorry?

Come on.

Oh, I, uh, think we should

Wait for him to arrive

before that's discussed.

Perhaps a consensus amongst us

Would be helpful

when he does arrive.

Well, I think it's fairly clear

What he'll say our

responsibility is: Nothing.

Our talents were used

on the chalkboards

In the classrooms,

And ultimately composed here.

And that may be where

they'd like to leave things,

But if history

has an precedent,

We're at the forefront

of a new technocratic reality.

Just like oppenheimer.

We really should be thinking

about mathematicians

As politicians.

But those guys

had no precedent.

And, quite frankly,

after seeing

What oppenheimer

endured after trinity,

I'm not sure any of us

is prepared for that.

Regardless, it's reality.

We've all thought about it,

I mean...

I'm gonna say that I object

to these comparisons.

- Why?

- It's just uncomfortable.

I understand that, but why?

Perhaps it's heartburn,

but who knows?

Come on.

Because, at the penultimate

achievement of his career,

The only thing oppenheimer

could remember

Was the bhagavad gita:

"Now I am become death,

the destroyer of worlds."

I don't know

who's more naive...

The one who believes ignoring

the problem is righteous,

Or the one who believes

this discovery

Is equivalent

to the atomic bomb.

I think you miss my point.

Whereas their work

was built around

Threat, fear,

and ultimately destruction.

Her work was one of discovery

and knowledge... That's it.

You can't overlook the fact

that their research

Blazed the way

for numerous scientific

And medical achievements that

have saved countless lives...

- I understand that.

- And facilitated the growth

Of the global economy

as we know it.

Nuclear power provides

20% of the U.S.'S

And 30% of the eu's

electrical power.

I understand that,

but the aims of their project...

They knew what

their objective was.

It was destructive.

I mean, who are we

kidding here?

No, wrong. It was political,

just as this is.

I'm sorry,

you just said a moment ago

That there was no possible way

They could understand

the consequences

Of what they were doing.

Now you say their ultimate aim

was destructive?

No... no.

There is a massive difference

Between understanding

what you have to do

And not knowing how history

will view your achievements...

Or maybe failure.

If you recall,

there was widespread fear

At los Alamos that an

uncontrolled nuclear explosion

Could set the atmosphere

on fire,

Ending life on earth.

We're talking about

an atomic, fissile

Particle chain reaction here,

right?

Certainly, these men

knew that the device

They were building

was destructive.

But how could they possibly

have understood

How their endeavor

would affect the future?

Like if it would result

in international, global...

I don't know...

Cosmic horror?

If society somehow survived

such a catastrophe,

They'd most likely be viewed,

Whether through propaganda

or not, as villains,

Worse than Hitler.

Well, the truth, I think,

lies somewhere in between.

Why don't we shift gears

before he arrives

And discuss if there

are any issues within the body

Of the findings.

I know we applied

our own expertise

To portions of the report

that fit our field,

Often independently

and while our work

Was rigorously examined

throughout the process.

So...

I guess, are there

any questions?

Or issues with anyone's work?

Ultimately, everything

was functional.

But no one has any questions,

comments?

I had a hard time

validating your proof, doctor.

Computationally, on the surface,

it appeared correct.

It was quite elegant, really.

But, upon closer examination,

a potential error...

Really?

I think we all know

it's airtight.

I mean, we made our

nondeterministic processor.

You can hold it in your hand.

It's simply a physical

representation of the algorithm.

To be blunt,

I'm still not convinced

That your final

computation class

Is computable in linear time.

What, are you nervous?

It's right.

We were more than methodical,

rigorous, even.

Review upon review...

It's right.

I agree... The processor

wouldn't compute

What it's computing

if p wasn't equal to np.

That's right.

Let me put it another way.

The mind's flexibility...

Or maybe I should

say performance...

Is dramatically hindered

the more mileage you put on it.

I mean, Christ,

it's basically the theme

- Of hardy's biography.

- Jim...

p=np is the most significant

problem

In theoretical computer science

And mathematical

complexity theory.

Nearly every area of knowledge

is based on the idea

That brute-Force search

is hard, okay?

That it takes a long time.

We just showed that it's easy.

Everything changes.

This could pave the way

for... It's...

When we prove that p=np,

It has to be done right.

Pick a card.

Come on, pick a card.

Remember that

and put it back in the deck.

Okay, now, if I were

a lousy magician, I would...

You are a lousy magician.

The best way to find your card

Would be to go through each

and ask you,

"Is this your card?"

No.

No. And so on.

And this would take forever,

of course.

Imagine a deck

with a million cards.

I couldn't possibly.

Right. Now...

If I had this problem with

our nondeterministic oracle,

I would simply

give it the deck,

And I would say,

"which is the right card?"

Employ a little nondeterministic

computation,

And...

what do the French say?

Voila?

Voila.

Quite a visual presentation.

So, if I can get this straight,

In your explanation,

that I'm pretty sure I saw

Somewhere between

the 10th and 11th grade,

The nondeterministic step

to simplify p=np

And, ultimately, the world,

works in linear time

Because the cards say so?

You're simply suggesting

that your algorithm

Is fundamental?

No...

I'm simply suggesting

that it's magic.

Thank you.

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes