It’s all about the hyperfractals
Given my public role as zookeeper, blogger, and jester, you might expect that I’d get a lot of strange email: from would-be Ramanujans who’ve proved or disproved P!=NP, stoners with bold new insights about string theory and consciousness, and complexity groupies who wanna collapse my hierarchy. And you’d be right, at least about the first two. But once in a while I’m graced with a missive so sublime — so perfect — that there’s nothing to do but post it here in its entirety.
RE: HYPERFRACTALS — SHORTCUTS TO QUANTUM COMPUTING
Don’t let scientists intimidate you — quantum mechanics is simple. If you can read a hyperfractal, then all you need is common sense and an inquiring mind.
You don’t even need any math. Just follow the hyperfractal wiring diagram and figure it out for yourself. Real-life quantum applications are all around you waiting to be solved by you, your friends, relatives and co-workers. Together you can dig into all of the “unknowables” of academic science and discover that nature is logical and you own the keys to unlocking the future for your own benefit. There are faster, simpler, easier, stronger, cheaper ways to improve the world around you. The hyperfractal is your diagnostic tool for probing the quantum world and making it work — without scientific credentials.
For instance. On Sunday, February 26th the University of Illinois released a press statement concerning “A Strange Computer is Both On an Off.” Odd concept: The experiment could aid in understanding quantum computing. The bizarre realm of quantum mechanics — the physics theory that stumped even Albert Einstein — tiny things like electrons and packets of light often seen to be in two places at once in total violation of common sense. The newspaper article says that the tightest codes used in banking transactions that would take 100 million serial computers a thousand years to decipher can be solved by quantum computers in minutes. Scientists are hyperventilating and reeling in shock.
Actually, the hidebound computer research scientists are sixteen years overdue for recognizing quantum computing that operates on nature’s universal hyperfractal architecture. So far, it’s only encryption and decoding that has them terrified of the change from serial computers to serial/parallel quantum computing. However, to scientists, the scariest of all is the prospect of losing their authoritative power and prestige to the masses — the ordinary people who have common sense, a difficult problem to solve and the means to achieve their goals using their knowledge of nature as it really is — without academic indoctrination programs.
Cleaning up the environment by putting all the oil/coal/gas/nuclear power plants into functional obsolescence will take decades if the government, corporate or academic scientists try to use force to make nature obey orders — but only weeks or months to spread the word that natural energy is free energy and we can harness the unlimited spectrum of energy — it’s ours. Let’s take advantage.
Take charge of your own future — trailblazers can popularize quantum mechanics for the end users — the public. There’s nothing to be afraid of. Nature is a friend — not an adversary. Quantum mechanics is simple. Peer-to-peer groups can debunk the Energy Shortage and demonstrate how ordinary people can overcome stale, restrictive, authoritarian thinking if we put our creative minds to it. You’ll need a hyperfractal diagnostic tool — on request I’ll send you a hyperfractal wiring diagram. Can we talk about it peer-to-peer?
Carla Hein
President/Coordinator
The DoubleParadox Network, P2P
Ms. Hein actually sent this gem to my colleague Alex Russell, but thoughtfully cc’ed it to me. Of course I wrote back to request the hyperfractal wiring diagram (assuming I’m included in her offer). I’ll let you know if she sends it.
Follow
Comment #1 March 3rd, 2006 at 12:17 am
Prestige to the masses? Those same masses that ask me when I plan to finish studying and get a job after I proudly announce my first postdoc position?
It’s enough to make one hyperventilate.
Comment #2 March 3rd, 2006 at 1:26 am
from would-be Ramanujans who’ve proved or disproved P!=NP
Ramanujan rarely if ever proved anything. Mostly he just stated mathematical facts. I think he either hated or found proofs boring like Heaviside did.
Comment #3 March 3rd, 2006 at 1:29 am
Sometimes those emails can be true gems. A computer scientist received that well known paper “PRIMES IN P” and thought it was from a crank. Luckily, he actually decided to read it and found out it was no crank.
Comment #4 March 3rd, 2006 at 1:46 am
Ramanujan rarely if ever proved anything. Mostly he just stated mathematical facts.
A century from now, scholars will be poring over the surviving notebooks of the P!=NP spammers, saying: “but how did they know that 3SAT requires 2^n steps? I mean, it doesn’t, but what deeper truth is being hinted at?”
Comment #5 March 3rd, 2006 at 2:35 am
A computer scientist received that well known paper “PRIMES IN P” and thought it was from a crank.
I wondered about that too when I first saw the paper, since at that time I’d never heard of Agrawal (let alone his students). But it became apparent after ~10 minutes that the algorithm was too clearly-stated and too novel to be the work of cranks. I was visiting CWI then, and I still remember running to Troy Lee’s office with a printout, telling him to read this half-page of pseudocode that was probably the result of the decade.
Comment #6 March 3rd, 2006 at 3:42 am
If it is true that you had not heard of
Manindra before the Primes result, you are
no complexity theorist. His contributions
are significant (eg: isomorphism) even without the primes result.
Comment #7 March 3rd, 2006 at 3:51 am
Dude. I was a beginning grad student.
Comment #8 March 3rd, 2006 at 11:34 am
On a different note, I’ve heard that when dealing with delusional people, it is more helpful to focus on the things they say that are grounded in reality than the delusional parts.
Maybe tweaking the hyperfractal inventor isn’t the nicest approach.
Comment #9 March 3rd, 2006 at 12:53 pm
He isn’t tweaking the hyperfractal inventor in this case, he’s tweaking the hyperfractal discoverer, or the hyperfractal advocate, or whatever.
It’s only in his God-related posts that he’s tweaking the hyperfrqctal inventor.
Comment #10 March 3rd, 2006 at 1:23 pm
I hope this article does not relate to the same hyperfractal claim:
http://tinyurl.com/efjgg
Comment #11 March 4th, 2006 at 1:37 am
For further enjoyment from this Google-cached conversation:
Open Letter to Developers,
Is there any way you can cut through the mob scene at Homeland Defense
with a powerful new encryption/decryption formula? The government cryptography bunch are stuck in symmetry and asymmetry and are deaf/dumb/blind to supersymmetry.
When it’s so easy to line up a supersymmetrical hypercube
fractal-to-fractal, pair-to-pair, quantum-to-quantum and slice through
all the mathematical protocols using set-to-set precision, it’s clear that perfect internet or banking security can be accomplished in
minutes —- not months, years, decades. Cheesh!!
To date, 40-bit encryption is standard and 120-bit is called “deep
encryption”. It isn’t! On a supersymmetrical hypercube that is
merely 7 X 7, set-to-set. That’s childsplay in supersymmetry.
Try 8 X 8 (256-bit), 9 X 9 (512-bit), or 10 X 10-bit (1,024-bit) set-to-set encryption/decryption. That’s not multiplication—that’s powers of ten expressed in multiple progressions.
The worst thing that can happen is that some Third World power can
discover that supersymmetrical hypercubes work anywhere, for anybody, who is smart enough to employ set-to-set calculations. Whenever the Washington bureaucrats discover that every “Top Secret” file coded in 120-bit encryption has been hacked by an outsider with 1,024-bit decryption and coredumped on the Internet for worldwide inspection and derision —- it’s too late!
I give up! I’d be happy to discuss hypercubes, set-to-set calculation
or any aspect of supersymmetrical encryption/decryption with anyone
who can jolt the Homeland Defense boys to attention. Can you do it?
Carla Koerner Hein
Comment #12 March 4th, 2006 at 2:05 am
A century from now, scholars will be poring over the surviving notebooks of the P!=NP spammers, saying: “but how did they know that 3SAT requires 2^n steps? I mean, it doesn’t, but what deeper truth is being hinted at?”
I’m afraid that this remark is going a bit over my head. Are you saying that some of Ramanujan’s work is bunk? Likely.
As an aside, how can you tell whether or not someone’s P!=NP paper is a crank or not. I’m thinking of the list provided here http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm
Comment #13 March 4th, 2006 at 3:30 am
As an aside, how can you tell whether or not someone’s P!=NP paper is a crank or not.
It’s much easier than you’d think.
If the paper claims to show that 3SAT takes exponential time, but the same argument would also imply that 2SAT and Maximum Matching take exponential time, the paper is crap.
If there’s no explanation for how the proof gets around the Razborov-Rudich and Baker-Gill-Solovay obstacles, the paper is crap.
If there are plenty of low-level encoding details but no striking mathematical idea, the paper is crap.
Any one of these three criteria, by itself, can already dispose of every P!=NP paper I’ve encountered.
Comment #14 March 4th, 2006 at 3:52 am
I’m afraid that this remark is going a bit over my head. Are you saying that some of Ramanujan’s work is bunk?
No — I was pointing out the hilarity of even mentioning him in the same breath as the P!=NP provers! Ramanujan earned the right to have his non-rigorous, mistake-riddled notebooks pored over by scholars after he was dead.
Comment #15 March 4th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Any one of these three criteria, by itself, can already dispose of every P!=NP paper I’ve encountered.
Interesting. I wonder why the authors of these papers aren’t aware of these stumbling blocks? Sloppiness?
Comment #16 March 4th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
I wonder why the authors of these papers aren’t aware of these stumbling blocks? Sloppiness?
If they were aware of them, they wouldn’t be writing papers claiming to have proved P!=NP.
Comment #17 March 4th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
How can people object to the Anthropic Principle when it works so well?
———————
I wonder why the authors of these papers aren’t aware of these stumbling blocks? Sloppiness?
If they were aware of them, they wouldn’t be writing papers claiming to have proved P!=NP.
Comment #18 March 4th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
>http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm
I’m reading it.
I simply don’t understand why these people don’t implement (in case of P=NP claims) their algorithms and run them on data… Duh! I suppose they don’t even know any language…
Comment #19 March 4th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
The superfluous P2P at the end is a nice touch. Do you get a lot of wingnuts claiming to be peer to peer gurus?
Comment #20 March 5th, 2006 at 4:44 am
Go easy, guys. Isn’t a schizophrenic merely a mathematician in the limit?
Comment #21 March 5th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Do you get a lot of wingnuts claiming to be peer to peer gurus?
No, I think this one’s the first.
Comment #22 March 5th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Ah, count yourself lucky then – I get tons of ‘BitTorrent could work a lot better if you used error correcting codes’ messages, as if the thought had never occured to me, and the one time I bothered rebutting one it made headlines. And those headlines played it up as a real political controversy, rather than mostly a set of simple statements of fact on my part.
Comment #23 March 10th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Scott,
I’m inclined to agree with your criteria.
However, in connection with Baker-Gill-Solovay and Razborov-Rudich, it’s sobering to remember Feynman’s response when asked by Dirac if QED was unitary. Essentially, he said “I’ll write down the theory, and you can tell me if it’s unitary.” (I’m not advocating ignorance, just pointing out an empirical fact.)
Michael Nielsen
Comment #24 March 11th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
Michael:
Thanks for the anecdote! I’ve also heard that Feynman couldn’t understand what P vs. NP is and why it’s an open problem. I don’t know if that’s true, but I hope it is, since it would imply the non-universality of Feynman’s brain.
Comment #25 March 12th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
I’ve also heard that Feynman couldn’t understand what P vs. NP is and why it’s an open problem. I don’t know if that’s true, but I hope it is, since it would imply the non-universality of Feynman’s brain.
I can’t believe it. I successfully explained P vs NP to a smart theology student in under an hour while on holiday with her; I can’t believe Feynman wouldn’t be able to grasp it faster.
We get lots of kooks in crypto, as you can probably imagine. I didn’t realise that kooks tried to prove P != NP – I’m more used to seeing them present algorithms that puport to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time.