> The fact that we haven't seen any time travelers means humans go extinct before developing time travel.
> Artificial intelligence will one day be advanced enough to threaten humanity, but then someone unplugs it.
> It will be proven that P != NP.
> There are other civilizations in the universe, but Earth is the only one in the Milky Way.
>>8003095
> The fact that we haven't seen any time travelers means humans go extinct before developing time travel.
What about if time travel is just not possible?
>>8003095
time travel doesn't exist
AI will always be under control barring small breaches, something like what happened with nuclear bombs. enough power to destroy everything but it's politics at play
the P = NP problem really has no practical relevance
the last one is just dumb speculation
>>8003103
Idk, it seems like we don't know for sure yet.
>>8003108
>the P = NP problem really has no practical relevance
Uh yeah it does. P != NP sets a profound limit on what technology can achieve.
>>8003095
Unless special relativity is fundamentally wrong, which there is absolutely no evidence for since it is used in both QFT and GR, time travel is physically impossible.
Not even in String Theory, where it is perfectly acceptable for the universe to exist as the volume swept out by some D10-brane, is time travel possible.
>>8003121
**Correction: Backwards time travel
>>8003121
>current year
>implying there's anything anywhere that proves time travel is impossible
>implying everything is known
[math]
I_{S_{H_{Y_{G_{D_{D_{T}}}}}}}
[/math]
>>8003119
no, it absolutely doesn't, contrary to what memes you've heard from people who never studied complexity
in the real world, constant factors matter. an enlightening example is the matrix multiplication problem. it's been proven that it's almost O(n^2) but any algorithm that runs close to that time is grossly unusable because of tremendous constants. I think the O(n^(2.73)) one is the lowest practical one?
>>8003145
Analysis and implementation are meant to be separate, but anyway a 0.73 difference in log BigO complexity is not relevant on the scale we're talking about.
If you don't think the P-NP problem is noteworthy then why don't you write a letter to the Millenium Prize Committee and enlighten them. I'm sure they'll apologize for their stupid thinking once you set them straight.
>engineer detected
>>8003162
The point, which went right over your idiotic head, is that if a jump from O(n^3) to O(n^2) can create such tremendous constants, a jump from O(2^n) to O(n^k) would potentially be even greater.
I never said it isn't noteworthy, I said it has no practical relevance. You're just illiterate as well.
>>8003167
Your basically saying that a certain arbitrary implementation of algorithms is un-ideal and therefore the entire field of algorithmic analysis is impractical.
Seems legit.
>a jump from O(n^3) to O(n^2)
>jump
kek
>>8003189
are you too idiotic to understand that this is not a problem of implementation? it's not that no one has figured out how to implement the algorithm optimally, it's that it has tremendous constants because of what you need to do for it
>>8003095
>time travel is invented
>one group of people go back to establish themselves and assure no one (other than themselves) will ever be able to time travel
>they're out there now, watching us, jacking off, fucking around, just waiting for the time come that they will begin to exercise their purpose
>an Engineering degree is just you paying for your own on-the-job training.
