recentpopularlog in

nhaliday : lower-bounds   42

The Existential Risk of Math Errors - Gwern.net
How big is this upper bound? Mathematicians have often made errors in proofs. But it’s rarer for ideas to be accepted for a long time and then rejected. But we can divide errors into 2 basic cases corresponding to type I and type II errors:

1. Mistakes where the theorem is still true, but the proof was incorrect (type I)
2. Mistakes where the theorem was false, and the proof was also necessarily incorrect (type II)

Before someone comes up with a final answer, a mathematician may have many levels of intuition in formulating & working on the problem, but we’ll consider the final end-product where the mathematician feels satisfied that he has solved it. Case 1 is perhaps the most common case, with innumerable examples; this is sometimes due to mistakes in the proof that anyone would accept is a mistake, but many of these cases are due to changing standards of proof. For example, when David Hilbert discovered errors in Euclid’s proofs which no one noticed before, the theorems were still true, and the gaps more due to Hilbert being a modern mathematician thinking in terms of formal systems (which of course Euclid did not think in). (David Hilbert himself turns out to be a useful example of the other kind of error: his famous list of 23 problems was accompanied by definite opinions on the outcome of each problem and sometimes timings, several of which were wrong or questionable5.) Similarly, early calculus used ‘infinitesimals’ which were sometimes treated as being 0 and sometimes treated as an indefinitely small non-zero number; this was incoherent and strictly speaking, practically all of the calculus results were wrong because they relied on an incoherent concept - but of course the results were some of the greatest mathematical work ever conducted6 and when later mathematicians put calculus on a more rigorous footing, they immediately re-derived those results (sometimes with important qualifications), and doubtless as modern math evolves other fields have sometimes needed to go back and clean up the foundations and will in the future.7

...

Isaac Newton, incidentally, gave two proofs of the same solution to a problem in probability, one via enumeration and the other more abstract; the enumeration was correct, but the other proof totally wrong and this was not noticed for a long time, leading Stigler to remark:

...

TYPE I > TYPE II?
“Lefschetz was a purely intuitive mathematician. It was said of him that he had never given a completely correct proof, but had never made a wrong guess either.”
- Gian-Carlo Rota13

Case 2 is disturbing, since it is a case in which we wind up with false beliefs and also false beliefs about our beliefs (we no longer know that we don’t know). Case 2 could lead to extinction.

...

Except, errors do not seem to be evenly & randomly distributed between case 1 and case 2. There seem to be far more case 1s than case 2s, as already mentioned in the early calculus example: far more than 50% of the early calculus results were correct when checked more rigorously. Richard Hamming attributes to Ralph Boas a comment that while editing Mathematical Reviews that “of the new results in the papers reviewed most are true but the corresponding proofs are perhaps half the time plain wrong”.

...

Gian-Carlo Rota gives us an example with Hilbert:

...

Olga labored for three years; it turned out that all mistakes could be corrected without any major changes in the statement of the theorems. There was one exception, a paper Hilbert wrote in his old age, which could not be fixed; it was a purported proof of the continuum hypothesis, you will find it in a volume of the Mathematische Annalen of the early thirties.

...

Leslie Lamport advocates for machine-checked proofs and a more rigorous style of proofs similar to natural deduction, noting a mathematician acquaintance guesses at a broad error rate of 1/329 and that he routinely found mistakes in his own proofs and, worse, believed false conjectures30.

[more on these "structured proofs":
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/52435/does-anyone-actually-publish-structured-proofs
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/35727/community-experiences-writing-lamports-structured-proofs
]

We can probably add software to that list: early software engineering work found that, dismayingly, bug rates seem to be simply a function of lines of code, and one would expect diseconomies of scale. So one would expect that in going from the ~4,000 lines of code of the Microsoft DOS operating system kernel to the ~50,000,000 lines of code in Windows Server 2003 (with full systems of applications and libraries being even larger: the comprehensive Debian repository in 2007 contained ~323,551,126 lines of code) that the number of active bugs at any time would be… fairly large. Mathematical software is hopefully better, but practitioners still run into issues (eg Durán et al 2014, Fonseca et al 2017) and I don’t know of any research pinning down how buggy key mathematical systems like Mathematica are or how much published mathematics may be erroneous due to bugs. This general problem led to predictions of doom and spurred much research into automated proof-checking, static analysis, and functional languages31.

[related:
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/11517/computer-algebra-errors
I don't know any interesting bugs in symbolic algebra packages but I know a true, enlightening and entertaining story about something that looked like a bug but wasn't.

Define sinc𝑥=(sin𝑥)/𝑥.

Someone found the following result in an algebra package: ∫∞0𝑑𝑥sinc𝑥=𝜋/2
They then found the following results:

...

So of course when they got:

∫∞0𝑑𝑥sinc𝑥sinc(𝑥/3)sinc(𝑥/5)⋯sinc(𝑥/15)=(467807924713440738696537864469/935615849440640907310521750000)𝜋

hmm:
Which means that nobody knows Fourier analysis nowdays. Very sad and discouraging story... – fedja Jan 29 '10 at 18:47

--

Because the most popular systems are all commercial, they tend to guard their bug database rather closely -- making them public would seriously cut their sales. For example, for the open source project Sage (which is quite young), you can get a list of all the known bugs from this page. 1582 known issues on Feb.16th 2010 (which includes feature requests, problems with documentation, etc).

That is an order of magnitude less than the commercial systems. And it's not because it is better, it is because it is younger and smaller. It might be better, but until SAGE does a lot of analysis (about 40% of CAS bugs are there) and a fancy user interface (another 40%), it is too hard to compare.

I once ran a graduate course whose core topic was studying the fundamental disconnect between the algebraic nature of CAS and the analytic nature of the what it is mostly used for. There are issues of logic -- CASes work more or less in an intensional logic, while most of analysis is stated in a purely extensional fashion. There is no well-defined 'denotational semantics' for expressions-as-functions, which strongly contributes to the deeper bugs in CASes.]

...

Should such widely-believed conjectures as P≠NP or the Riemann hypothesis turn out be false, then because they are assumed by so many existing proofs, a far larger math holocaust would ensue38 - and our previous estimates of error rates will turn out to have been substantial underestimates. But it may be a cloud with a silver lining, if it doesn’t come at a time of danger.

https://mathoverflow.net/questions/338607/why-doesnt-mathematics-collapse-down-even-though-humans-quite-often-make-mista

more on formal methods in programming:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/formal-verification-creates-hacker-proof-code-20160920/
https://intelligence.org/2014/03/02/bob-constable/

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/375342/what-are-the-barriers-that-prevent-widespread-adoption-of-formal-methods
Update: measured effort
In the October 2018 issue of Communications of the ACM there is an interesting article about Formally verified software in the real world with some estimates of the effort.

Interestingly (based on OS development for military equipment), it seems that producing formally proved software requires 3.3 times more effort than with traditional engineering techniques. So it's really costly.

On the other hand, it requires 2.3 times less effort to get high security software this way than with traditionally engineered software if you add the effort to make such software certified at a high security level (EAL 7). So if you have high reliability or security requirements there is definitively a business case for going formal.

WHY DON'T PEOPLE USE FORMAL METHODS?: https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/why-dont-people-use-formal-methods/
You can see examples of how all of these look at Let’s Prove Leftpad. HOL4 and Isabelle are good examples of “independent theorem” specs, SPARK and Dafny have “embedded assertion” specs, and Coq and Agda have “dependent type” specs.6

If you squint a bit it looks like these three forms of code spec map to the three main domains of automated correctness checking: tests, contracts, and types. This is not a coincidence. Correctness is a spectrum, and formal verification is one extreme of that spectrum. As we reduce the rigour (and effort) of our verification we get simpler and narrower checks, whether that means limiting the explored state space, using weaker types, or pushing verification to the runtime. Any means of total specification then becomes a means of partial specification, and vice versa: many consider Cleanroom a formal verification technique, which primarily works by pushing code review far beyond what’s humanly possible.

...

The question, then: “is 90/95/99% correct significantly cheaper than 100% correct?” The answer is very yes. We all are comfortable saying that a codebase we’ve well-tested and well-typed is mostly correct modulo a few fixes in prod, and we’re even writing more than four lines of code a day. In fact, the vast… [more]
ratty  gwern  analysis  essay  realness  truth  correctness  reason  philosophy  math  proofs  formal-methods  cs  programming  engineering  worse-is-better/the-right-thing  intuition  giants  old-anglo  error  street-fighting  heuristic  zooming  risk  threat-modeling  software  lens  logic  inference  physics  differential  geometry  estimate  distribution  robust  speculation  nonlinearity  cost-benefit  convexity-curvature  measure  scale  trivia  cocktail  history  early-modern  europe  math.CA  rigor  news  org:mag  org:sci  miri-cfar  pdf  thesis  comparison  examples  org:junk  q-n-a  stackex  pragmatic  tradeoffs  cracker-prog  techtariat  invariance  DSL  chart  ecosystem  grokkability  heavyweights  CAS  static-dynamic  lower-bounds  complexity  tcs  open-problems  big-surf  ideas  certificates-recognition  proof-systems  PCP  mediterranean  SDP  meta:prediction  epistemic  questions  guessing  distributed  overflow  nibble  soft-question  track-record  big-list  hmm  frontier  state-of-art  move-fast-(and-break-things)  grokkability-clarity  technical-writing  trust 
july 2019 by nhaliday
Applications of computational learning theory in the cognitive sciences - Psychology & Neuroscience Stack Exchange
1. Gold's theorem on the unlearnability in the limit of certain sets of languages, among them context-free ones.

2. Ronald de Wolf's master's thesis on the impossibility to PAC-learn context-free languages.

The first made quiet a stir in the poverty-of-the-stimulus debate, and the second has been unnoticed by cognitive science.
q-n-a  stackex  psychology  cog-psych  learning  learning-theory  machine-learning  PAC  lower-bounds  no-go  language  linguistics  models  fall-2015 
february 2019 by nhaliday
Complexity no Bar to AI - Gwern.net
Critics of AI risk suggest diminishing returns to computing (formalized asymptotically) means AI will be weak; this argument relies on a large number of questionable premises and ignoring additional resources, constant factors, and nonlinear returns to small intelligence advantages, and is highly unlikely. (computer science, transhumanism, AI, R)
created: 1 June 2014; modified: 01 Feb 2018; status: finished; confidence: likely; importance: 10
ratty  gwern  analysis  faq  ai  risk  speedometer  intelligence  futurism  cs  computation  complexity  tcs  linear-algebra  nonlinearity  convexity-curvature  average-case  adversarial  article  time-complexity  singularity  iteration-recursion  magnitude  multiplicative  lower-bounds  no-go  performance  hardware  humanity  psychology  cog-psych  psychometrics  iq  distribution  moments  complement-substitute  hanson  ems  enhancement  parable  detail-architecture  universalism-particularism  neuro  ai-control  environment  climate-change  threat-modeling  security  theory-practice  hacker  academia  realness  crypto  rigorous-crypto  usa  government 
april 2018 by nhaliday
Correlated Equilibria in Game Theory | Azimuth
Given this, it’s not surprising that Nash equilibria can be hard to find. Last September a paper came out making this precise, in a strong way:

• Yakov Babichenko and Aviad Rubinstein, Communication complexity of approximate Nash equilibria.

The authors show there’s no guaranteed method for players to find even an approximate Nash equilibrium unless they tell each other almost everything about their preferences. This makes finding the Nash equilibrium prohibitively difficult to find when there are lots of players… in general. There are particular games where it’s not difficult, and that makes these games important: for example, if you’re trying to run a government well. (A laughable notion these days, but still one can hope.)

Klarreich’s article in Quanta gives a nice readable account of this work and also a more practical alternative to the concept of Nash equilibrium. It’s called a ‘correlated equilibrium’, and it was invented by the mathematician Robert Aumann in 1974. You can see an attempt to define it here:
baez  org:bleg  nibble  mathtariat  commentary  summary  news  org:mag  org:sci  popsci  equilibrium  GT-101  game-theory  acm  conceptual-vocab  concept  definition  thinking  signaling  coordination  tcs  complexity  communication-complexity  lower-bounds  no-go  liner-notes  big-surf  papers  research  algorithmic-econ  volo-avolo 
july 2017 by nhaliday
Predicting the outcomes of organic reactions via machine learning: are current descriptors sufficient? | Scientific Reports
As machine learning/artificial intelligence algorithms are defeating chess masters and, most recently, GO champions, there is interest – and hope – that they will prove equally useful in assisting chemists in predicting outcomes of organic reactions. This paper demonstrates, however, that the applicability of machine learning to the problems of chemical reactivity over diverse types of chemistries remains limited – in particular, with the currently available chemical descriptors, fundamental mathematical theorems impose upper bounds on the accuracy with which raction yields and times can be predicted. Improving the performance of machine-learning methods calls for the development of fundamentally new chemical descriptors.
study  org:nat  papers  machine-learning  chemistry  measurement  volo-avolo  lower-bounds  analysis  realness  speedometer  nibble  🔬  applications  frontier  state-of-art  no-go  accuracy  interdisciplinary 
july 2017 by nhaliday
Energy of Seawater Desalination
0.66 kcal / liter is the minimum energy required to desalination of one liter of seawater, regardless of the technology applied to the process.
infrastructure  explanation  physics  thermo  objektbuch  data  lower-bounds  chemistry  the-world-is-just-atoms  geoengineering  phys-energy  nibble  oceans  h2o  applications  estimate  🔬  energy-resources  biophysical-econ  stylized-facts  ideas  fluid  volo-avolo 
february 2017 by nhaliday
Computational Complexity: Favorite Theorems: The Yao Principle
The Yao Principle applies when we don't consider the algorithmic complexity of the players. For example in communication complexity we have two players who each have a separate half of an input string and they want to compute some function of the input with the minimum amount of communication between them. The Yao principle states that the best probabilistic strategies for the players will achieve exactly the communication bounds as the best deterministic strategy over a worst-case distribution of inputs.

The Yao Principle plays a smaller role where we measure the running time of an algorithm since applying the Principle would require solving an extremely large linear program. But since so many of our bounds are in information-based models like communication and decision-tree complexity, the Yao Principle, though not particularly complicated, plays an important role in lower bounds in a large number of results in our field.
tcstariat  tcs  complexity  adversarial  rand-approx  algorithms  game-theory  yoga  levers  communication-complexity  random  lower-bounds  average-case  nibble  org:bleg 
january 2017 by nhaliday

Copy this bookmark:





to read