A MOST PROFOUND MATH PROBLEM

pnp-580.jpg

On August 6, 2010, a computer scientist named Vinay Deolalikar published a paper with a name as concise as it was audacious: “P ≠ NP.” If Deolalikar was right, he had cut one of mathematics’ most tightly tied Gordian knots. In 2000, the P = NP problem was designated by the Clay Mathematics Institute as one of seven Millennium Problems—“important classic questions that have resisted solution for many years”—only one of which has been solved since. (The Poincaré Conjecture was vanquished in 2003 by the reclusive Russian mathematicianGrigory Perelman, who refused the attached million-dollar prize.)

 

A few of the Clay problems are long-standing head-scratchers. The Riemann hypothesis, for example, made its debut in 1859. By contrast, P versus NP is relatively young, having been introduced by the University of Toronto mathematical theorist Stephen Cook in 1971, in a paper titled “The complexity of theorem-proving procedures,” though it had been touched upon two decades earlier in a letter by Kurt Gödel, whom David Foster Wallace branded “modern math’s absolute Prince of Darkness.” The question inherent in those three letters is a devilish one: Does P (problems that we can easily solve) equal NP (problems that we can easily check)?

Take your e-mail password as an analogy. Its veracity is checked within a nanosecond of your hitting the return key. But for someone to solve your password would probably be a fruitless pursuit, involving a near-infinite number of letter-number permutations—a trial and error lasting centuries upon centuries. Deolalikar was saying, in essence, that there will always be some problems for which we can recognize an answer without being able to quickly find one—intractable problems that lie beyond the grasp of even our most powerful microprocessors, that consign us to a world that will never be quite as easy as some futurists would have us believe. There always will be problems unsolved, answers unknown.Click link to read full article;

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/a-most-profound-math-problem.html

( Posted by F. Sheikh)

Is There a Chechen Connection to the Boston Bombings?

Submitted by S. Rizvi.

It appears the Tsarnaev brothers were self-motivated. But their Salafist extremism was itself one outgrowth of the brutal Chechen wars of independence against Russia

When a local newspaper here in Montana called for my views on a 19-year-old wrestler named Dzhokhar Tsarnaev with the confusing pedigree of being a Chechen from Dagestan who was reportedly born in Kyrgyzstan but mostly grew up in the United States, and what his motivations for the Boston Marathonterror attack may have been, I tried to use my background as the resident “Chechenologist” to help out.

About the Author

Thomas Goltz

Thomas Goltz teaches courses on the Middle East and the Caucasus region at Montana State University. He is also the…

Answering the second part of the
question—“Why?”—was easy: I did not know Tsarnaev’s motivations. But if he is guilty of the bombings—and I have little doubt at this point that he is—there must be a link to the deeply troubled history of Chechnya, and to the generations of anger, despair and trauma experienced by his people.

To start: Chechens are not Russians but a distinct national and lingual group, known as the Nakhs or Vainakhs, who are indigenous to the north slope of the Caucasus mountain range, where they have lived since before recorded history. Rather like Native American peoples, whose sad history is a strange and cruel mirror of the Chechens’ experience at the hands of Russian imperialism, the people of Chechnya do not call themselves “Chechens.” In their own language—as distinct from Russian as Navajo is from English—they are the Noxchi, which translates more or less as “the People.”

Click link to read full article;

http://www.thenation.com/article/174026/there-chechen-connection-boston-bombings

Paintings By George W. Bush

The Painter in Chief
George W. Bush’s leaked paintings may seem out of character, but they remind us that he is first and foremost a realist. By Morgan Meis

Click link to read article:

http://www.thesmartset.com/article/article04291301.aspx

( Posted by F. Sheikh)

WHY ALL THIS MATERNAL SYMPATHY FOR DZHOKHAR?

Hanna Rosin in Slate:

In this image released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on April 19, 2013, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19-years-old, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing is seen.

In the past week and a half I have not been to a school pickup, birthday, book party, or dinner where one of my mom friends has not said some version of “I feel sorry for that poor kid.” This group includes mothers of infants and grandmothers and generally pretty reasonable intelligent types, including one who is an expert on Middle Eastern extremist groups.

Many of them mention that ubiquitous photo of Dzhokhar with his hair tousled and too few hairs on his chin to shave. Some bring up the prom photo with the red carnation or the goofy video of him wrestling with his friends.* Some mention the “I love you, bro” tweets from his many friends. Some just seem anguished by the vision of that “poor kid” alone in the boat by himself, bleeding for all those hours. All of this sympathy stems of course from the storyline that coalesced early: a hapless genial pothead being coerced into killing by his sadistic older brother. As with such storylines, all evidence to the contrary gets suppressed.

Probably the correct moral response to this misplaced maternal sympathy is the one mySlate colleague had, which is to say: “People, please. Cut that shit out. He’s an adult and a mass-murderer.” There is evidence that he was not just a pot smoker but a dealer, and also like his brother, he was a fan of jihad. Also the photos of him at the actual bombing site are not so heartwarming, as they show him surveying the crowd he is about to blow up. Click below for full article;

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/04/29/maternal_sympathy_for_dzhokhar_tsarnaev_what_s_it_about.html.

( Posted by F. Sheikh)