How I learned to love and fear the Riemann Hypothesis

Re:How I learned to love and fear the Riemann Hypothesis by gjulianm on Tuesday January 05, 2021 @03:06PM (#25650322)

Yes, but it isn't useful. A conversation also has three outcomes (neutral, you like the person more, or less) and yet it doesn't make conversations similar to chess.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How I learned to love and fear the Riemann Hypothesis by whatshisface on Tuesday January 05, 2021 @04:17PM (#25651187)

Chess and math are both searches over countably infinite trees.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How I learned to love and fear the Riemann Hypothesis by gjulianm on Tuesday January 05, 2021 @05:55PM (#25652373)

And a conversation is a search over a countably infinite tree too.

My point is that even though some things have technical similarities, in practice they are very different challenges.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How I learned to love and fear the Riemann Hypothesis by whatshisface on Tuesday January 05, 2021 @06:00PM (#25652435)

Math and chess are both very easy to check. Proof checkers and chess rule checkers both exist. "Conversation checkers" do not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How I learned to love and fear the Riemann Hypothesis by ellis-bell on Tuesday January 05, 2021 @06:24PM (#25652694)

chess is actually not very easy to check.

chess is in exp, the class of problems requiring exponential time to solve and exponential time to check. unlike p vs np we do know that exp \neq p.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How I learned to love and fear the Riemann Hypothesis by whatshisface on Tuesday January 05, 2021 @06:36PM (#25652804)

It takes O(n) to check if a chess game follows the rules, and to check who wins. Same for checking a proof written in CoQ. What do you mean by "check?"

[ Parent | on HN ]