Vladimir Voevodsky died last week. He won the Fields Medal in 2002 for proving the Milnor conjecture in a branch of algebra known as algebraic K-theory. He continued to work on this subject until he helped prove the more general Bloch–Kato conjecture in 2010.

Proving these results—which are too technical to easily describe to nonmathematicians!—required him to develop a dream of Grothendieck: the theory of motives. Very roughly, this is a way of taking the space of solutions of some polynomial equations and chopping it apart into building blocks. But this process of ‘chopping’ and also these building blocks, called ‘motives’, are very abstract—nothing easy to visualize.

It’s a bit like how a proton is made of quarks. You never actually see a quark in isolation, so you have to think very hard to realize they are there at all. But once you know this, a lot of things become clear.

This is wonderful, profound mathematics. But in the process of proving the Bloch-Kato conjecture, Voevodsky became tired of this stuff. He wanted to do something more useful… and more ambitious. He later said:

It was very difficult. In fact, it was 10 years of technical work on a topic that did not interest me during the last 5 of these 10 years. Everything was done only through willpower.

Since the autumn of 1997, I already understood that my main contribution to the theory of motives and motivic cohomology was made. Since that time I have been very conscious and actively looking for. I was looking for a topic that I would deal with after I fulfilled my obligations related to the Bloch-Kato hypothesis.

I quickly realized that if I wanted to do something really serious, then I should make the most of my accumulated knowledge and skills in mathematics. On the other hand, seeing the trends in the development of mathematics as a science, I realized that the time is coming when the proof of yet another conjecture won’t have much of an effect. I realized that mathematics is on the verge of a crisis, or rather, two crises.

The first is connected with the separation of “pure” and applied mathematics. It is clear that sooner or later there will be a question about why society should pay money to people who are engaged in things that do not have any practical applications.

The second, less obvious, is connected with the complication of pure mathematics, which leads to the fact that, sooner or later, the articles will become too complicated for detailed verification and the process of accumulating undetected errors will begin. And since mathematics is a very deep science, in the sense that the results of one article usually depend on the results of many and many previous articles, this accumulation of errors for mathematics is very dangerous.

So, I decided, you need to try to do something that will help prevent these crises. For the first crisis, this meant that it was necessary to find an applied problem that required for its solution the methods of pure mathematics developed in recent years or even decades.

He looked for such a problem. He studied biology and found an interesting candidate. He worked on it very hard, but then decided he’d gone down a wrong path:

Since childhood I have been interested in natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology), as well as in the theory of computer languages, and since 1997, I have read a lot on these topics, and even took several student and post-graduate courses. In fact, I “updated” and deepened the knowledge that had to a very large extent. All this time I was looking for that I recognized open problems that would be of interest to me and to which I could apply modern mathematics.

As a result, I chose, I now understand incorrectly, the problem of recovering the history of populations from their modern genetic composition. I took on this task for a total of about two years, and in the end, already by 2009, I realized that what I was inventing was useless. In my life, so far, it was, perhaps, the greatest scientific failure. A lot of work was invested in the project, which completely failed. Of course, there was some benefit, of course—I learned a lot of probability theory, which I knew badly, and also learned a lot about demography and demographic history.

But he bounced back! He came up with a new approach to the foundations of mathematics, and helped organize a team at the Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton to develop it further. This approach is now called homotopy type theory or univalent foundations. It’s fundamentally different from set theory. It treats the fundamental concept of *equality* in a brand new way! And it’s designed to be done with the help of computers.

It seems he started down this new road when the mathematician Carlos Simpson pointed out a serious mistake in a paper he’d written.

I think it was at this moment that I largely stopped doing what is called “curiosity-driven research” and started to think seriously about the future. I didn’t have the tools to explore the areas where curiosity was leading me and the areas that I considered to be of value and of interest and of beauty.

So I started to look into what I could do to create such tools. And it soon became clear that the only long-term solution was somehow to make it possible for me to use computers to verify my abstract, logical, and mathematical constructions. The software for doing this has been in development since the sixties. At the time, when I started to look for a practical proof assistant around 2000, I could not find any. There were several groups developing such systems, but none of them was in any way appropriate for the kind of mathematics for which I needed a system.

When I first started to explore the possibility, computer proof verification was almost a forbidden subject among mathematicians. A conversation about the need for computer proof assistants would invariably drift to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (which has nothing to do with the actual problem) or to one or two cases of verification of already existing proofs, which were used only to demonstrate how impractical the whole idea was. Among the very few mathematicians who persisted in trying to advance the field of computer verification in mathematics during this time were Tom Hales and Carlos Simpson. Today, only a few years later, computer verification of proofs and of mathematical reasoning in general looks completely practical to many people who work on univalent foundations and homotopy type theory.

The primary challenge that needed to be addressed was that the foundations of mathematics were unprepared for the requirements of the task. Formulating mathematical reasoning in a language precise enough for a computer to follow meant using a foundational system of mathematics not as a standard of consistency to establish a few fundamental theorems, but as a tool that can be employed in everyday mathematical work. There were two main problems with the existing foundational systems, which made them inadequate. Firstly, existing foundations of mathematics were based on the languages of predicate logic and languages of this class are too limited. Secondly, existing foundations could not be used to directly express statements about such objects as, for example, the ones in my work on 2-theories.

Still, it is extremely difficult to accept that mathematics is in need of a completely new foundation. Even many of the people who are directly connected with the advances in homotopy type theory are struggling with this idea. There is a good reason: the existing foundations of mathematics—ZFC and category theory—have been very successful. Overcoming the appeal of category theory as a candidate for new foundations of mathematics was for me personally the most challenging.

Homotopy type theory is now a vital and exciting area of mathematics. It’s far from done, and to make it live up to Voevodsky’s dreams will require brand new ideas—not just incremental improvements, but actual sparks of genius. For some of the open problems, see Mike Shulman’s comment on the *n*-Category Café, and some replies to that.

I only met him a few times, but as far as I can tell Voevodsky was a completely unpretentious person. You can see that in the picture here.

He was also a very complex person. For example, you might not guess that he took great wildlife photos:

You also might not guess at this side of him:

In 2006-2007 a lot of external and internal events happened to me, after which my point of view on the questions of the “supernatural” changed significantly. What happened to me during these years, perhaps, can be compared most closely to what happened to Karl Jung in 1913-14. Jung called it “confrontation with the unconscious”. I do not know what to call it, but I can describe it in a few words. Remaining more or less normal, apart from the fact that I was trying to discuss what was happening to me with people whom I should not have discussed it with, I had in a few months acquired a very considerable experience of visions, voices, periods when parts of my body did not obey me, and a lot of incredible accidents. The most intense period was in mid-April 2007 when I spent 9 days (7 of them in the Mormon capital of Salt Lake City), never falling asleep for all these days.

Almost from the very beginning, I found that many of these phenomena (voices, visions, various sensory hallucinations), I could control. So I was not scared and did not feel sick, but perceived everything as something very interesting, actively trying to interact with those “beings” in the auditorial, visual and then tactile spaces that appeared around me (by themselves or by invoking them). I must say, probably, to avoid possible speculations on this subject, that I did not use any drugs during this period, tried to eat and sleep a lot, and drank diluted white wine.

Another comment: when I say “beings”, naturally I mean what in modern terminology are called complex hallucinations. The word “beings” emphasizes that these hallucinations themselves “behaved”, possessed a memory independent of my memory, and reacted to attempts at communication. In addition, they were often perceived in concert in various sensory modalities. For example, I played several times with a (hallucinated) ball with a (hallucinated) girl—and I saw this ball, and felt it with my palm when I threw it.

Despite the fact that all this was very interesting, it was very difficult. It happened for several periods, the longest of which lasted from September 2007 to February 2008 without breaks. There were days when I could not read, and days when coordination of movements was broken to such an extent that it was difficult to walk.

I managed to get out of this state due to the fact that I forced myself to start math again. By the middle of spring 2008 I could already function more or less normally and even went to Salt Lake City to look at the places where I wandered, not knowing where I was, in the spring of 2007.

In short, he was a genius akin to Cantor or Grothendieck, at times teetering on the brink of sanity, yet gripped by an immense desire for beauty and clarity, engaging in struggles that gripped his whole soul. From the fires of this volcano, truly original ideas emerge.

This last quote, and the first few quotes, are from some interviews in Russian, done by Roman Mikhailov, which Mike Stay pointed out to me. I used Google Translate and polished the results a bit:

• Интервью Владимира Воеводского (часть 1), 1 July 2012. English version via Google Translate: Interview with Vladimir Voevodsky (Part 1).

• Интервью Владимира Воеводского (часть 2), 5 July 2012. English version via Google Translate: Interview with Vladimir Voevodsky (Part 2).

The quote about the origins of ‘univalent foundations’ comes from his nice essay here:

• Vladimir Voevodsky, The origins and motivations of univalent foundations, 2014.

There’s also a good obituary of Voevodsky explaining its relation to Grothendieck’s idea in simple terms:

• Institute for Advanced Studies, Vladimir Voevodsky 1966–2017, 4 October 2017.

The photograph of Voevodsky is from Andrej Bauer’s website:

• Andrej Bauer, Photos of mathematicians.

To learn homotopy type theory, try this great book:

• *Homotopy Type Theory: Univalent Foundations of Mathematics*, The Univalent Foundations Program, Institute for Advanced Study.

]]>

I haven’t spoken much about the Azimuth Climate Data Backup Project, but it’s going well, and I’ll be speaking about it soon, here:

• International Open Access Week, Wednesday 25 October 2017, 9:30–11:00 a.m., University of California, Riverside, Orbach Science Library, Room 240.

“Open in Order to Save Data for Future Research” is the 2017 event theme.

Open Access Week is an opportunity for the academic and research community to learn about the potential benefits of sharing what they’ve learned with colleagues, and to help inspire wider participation in helping to make “open access” a new norm in scholarship, research and data planning and preservation.

The Open Access movement is made of up advocates (librarians, publishers, university repositories, etc.) who promote the free, immediate, and online publication of research.

The program will provide information on issues related to saving open data, including climate change and scientific data. The panelists also will describe open access projects in which they have participated to save climate data and to preserve end-of-term presidential data, information likely to be and utilized by the university community for research and scholarship.

The program includes:

• Brianna Marshall, Director of Research Services, UCR Library: Brianna welcomes guests and introduces panelists.

• John Baez, Professor of Mathematics, UCR: John will describe his activities to save US government climate data through his collaborative effort, the Azimuth Climate Data Backup Project. All of the saved data is now open access for everyone to utilize for research and scholarship.

• Perry Willett, Digital Preservation Projects Manager, California Digital Library: Perry will discuss the open data initiatives in which CDL participates, including the end-of-term presidential web archiving that is done in partnership with the Library of Congress, Internet Archive and University of North Texas.

• Kat Koziar, Data Librarian, UCR Library: Kat will give an overview of DASH, the UC system data repository, and provide suggestions for researchers interested in making their data open.

This will be the eighth International Open Access Week program hosted by the UCR Library.

The event is free and open to the public. Light refreshments will be served.

]]>

• Applied category theory, Fall Western Sectional Meeting of the AMS, 4-5 November 2017, U.C. Riverside.

This is going to be fun.

My former student Brendan Fong is now working with David Spivak at MIT, and they’re both coming. My collaborator John Foley at Metron is also coming: we’re working on the CASCADE project for designing networked systems.

Dmitry Vagner is coming from Duke: he wrote a paper with David and Eugene Lerman on operads and open dynamical system. Christina Vaisilakopoulou, who has worked with David and Patrick Schultz on dynamical systems, has just joined our group at UCR, so she will also be here. And the three of them have worked with Ryan Wisnesky on algebraic databases. Ryan will not be here, but his colleague Peter Gates will: together with David they have a startup called Categorical Informatics, which uses category theory to build sophisticated databases.

That’s not everyone—for example, most of my students will be speaking at this special session, and other people too—but that gives you a rough sense of some people involved. The conference is on a weekend, but John Foley and David Spivak and Brendan Fong and Dmitry Vagner are staying on for longer, so we’ll have some long conversations… and Brendan will explain decorated corelations in my Tuesday afternoon network theory seminar.

Here’s the program. Click on talk titles to see abstracts. For a multi-author talk, the person with the asterisk after their name is doing the talking. All the talks will be in Room 268 of the Highlander Union Building or ‘HUB’.

9:00 a.m.

A higher-order temporal logic for dynamical systems.

**David I. Spivak**, MIT

10:00 a.m.

Algebras of open dynamical systems on the operad of wiring diagrams.

**Dmitry Vagner***, Duke University

**David I. Spivak**, MIT

**Eugene Lerman**, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

10:30 a.m.

Abstract dynamical systems.

**Christina Vasilakopoulou***, University of California, Riverside

**David Spivak**, MIT

**Patrick Schultz**, MIT

3:00 p.m.

Black boxes and decorated corelations.

**Brendan Fong**, MIT

4:00 p.m.

Compositional modelling of open reaction networks.

**Blake S. Pollard***, University of California, Riverside

**John C. Baez**, University of California, Riverside

4:30 p.m.

A bicategory of coarse-grained Markov processes.

**Kenny Courser**, University of California, Riverside

5:00 p.m.

A bicategorical syntax for pure state qubit quantum mechanics.

**Daniel M. Cicala**, University of California, Riverside

5:30 p.m.

Open systems in classical mechanics.

**Adam Yassine**, University of California Riverside

9:00 a.m.

Controllability and observability: diagrams and duality.

**Jason Erbele**, Victor Valley College

9:30 a.m.

Frobenius monoids, weak bimonoids, and corelations.

**Brandon Coya**, University of California, Riverside

10:00 a.m.

Compositional design and tasking of networks.

**John D. Foley***, Metron, Inc.

**John C. Baez**, University of California, Riverside

**Joseph Moeller**, University of California, Riverside

**Blake S. Pollard**, University of California, Riverside

10:30 a.m.

Operads for modeling networks.

**Joseph Moeller***, University of California, Riverside

**John Foley**, Metron Inc.

**John C. Baez**, University of California, Riverside

**Blake S. Pollard**, University of California, Riverside

2:00 p.m.

Reeb graph smoothing via cosheaves.

**Vin de Silva**, Department of Mathematics, Pomona College

3:00 p.m.

Knowledge representation in bicategories of relations.

**Evan Patterson***, Stanford University, Statistics Department

3:30 p.m.

The multiresolution analysis of flow graphs.

**Steve Huntsman***, BAE Systems

4:00 p.m.

Data modeling and integration using the open source tool Algebraic Query Language (AQL).

**Peter Y. Gates***, Categorical Informatics

**Ryan Wisnesky**, Categorical Informatics

]]>

There will be a conference on applied category theory!

• Applied Category Theory (ACT 2018). School 23–27 April 2018 and workshop 30 April–4 May 2018 at the Lorentz Center in Leiden, the Netherlands. Organized by Bob Coecke (Oxford), Brendan Fong (MIT), Aleks Kissinger (Nijmegen), Martha Lewis (Amsterdam), and Joshua Tan (Oxford).

The plenary speakers will be:

• Samson Abramsky (Oxford)

• John Baez (UC Riverside)

• Kathryn Hess (EPFL)

• Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh (Queen Mary)

• David Spivak (MIT)

There will be a lot more to say as this progresses, but for now let me just quote from the conference website:

Applied Category Theory (ACT 2018) is a five-day workshop on applied category theory running from April 30 to May 4 at the Lorentz Center in Leiden, the Netherlands.

Towards an Integrative Science: in this workshop, we want to instigate a multi-disciplinary research program in which concepts, structures, and methods from one scientific discipline can be reused in another. The aim of the workshop is to (1) explore the use of category theory within and across different disciplines, (2) create a more cohesive and collaborative ACT community, especially among early-stage researchers, and (3) accelerate research by outlining common goals and open problems for the field.While the workshop will host discussions on a wide range of applications of category theory, there will be four special tracks on exciting new developments in the field:

1. Dynamical systems and networks

2. Systems biology

3. Cognition and AI

4. CausalityAccompanying the workshop will be an Adjoint Research School for early-career researchers. This will comprise a 16 week online seminar, followed by a 4 day research meeting at the Lorentz Center in the week prior to ACT 2018. Applications to the school will open prior to October 1, and are due November 1. Admissions will be notified by November 15.

Sincerely,

The organizersBob Coecke (Oxford), Brendan Fong (MIT), Aleks Kissinger (Nijmegen), Martha Lewis (Amsterdam), and Joshua Tan (Oxford)

We welcome any feedback! Please send comments to this link.

## About Applied Category Theory

Category theory is a branch of mathematics originally developed to transport ideas from one branch of mathematics to another, e.g. from topology to algebra. Applied category theory refers to efforts to transport the ideas of category theory from mathematics to other disciplines in science, engineering, and industry.

This site originated from discussions at the Computational Category Theory Workshop at NIST on Sept. 28-29, 2015. It serves to collect and disseminate research, resources, and tools for the development of applied category theory, and hosts a blog for those involved in its study.

## The proposal:

Towards an Integrative ScienceCategory theory was developed in the 1940s to translate ideas from one field of mathematics, e.g. topology, to another field of mathematics, e.g. algebra. More recently, category theory has become an unexpectedly useful and economical tool for modeling a range of different disciplines, including programming language theory [10], quantum mechanics [2], systems biology [12], complex networks [5], database theory [7], and dynamical systems [14].

A category consists of a collection of objects together with a collection of maps between those objects, satisfying certain rules. Topologists and geometers use category theory to describe the passage from one mathematical structure to another, while category theorists are also interested in categories for their own sake. In computer science and physics, many types of categories (e.g. topoi or monoidal categories) are used to give a formal semantics of domain-specific phenomena (e.g. automata [3], or regular languages [11], or quantum protocols [2]). In the applied category theory community, a long-articulated vision understands categories as mathematical workspaces for the experimental sciences, similar to how they are used in topology and geometry [13]. This has proved true in certain fields, including computer science and mathematical physics, and we believe that these results can be extended in an exciting direction: we believe that category theory has the potential to bridge specific different fields, and moreover that developments in such fields (e.g. automata) can be transferred successfully into other fields (e.g. systems biology) through category theory. Already, for example, the categorical modeling of quantum processes has helped solve an important open problem in natural language processing [9].

In this workshop, we want to instigate a multi-disciplinary research program in which concepts, structures, and methods from one discipline can be reused in another. Tangibly and in the short-term, we will bring together people from different disciplines in order to write an expository survey paper that grounds the varied research in applied category theory and lays out the parameters of the research program.

In formulating this research program, we are motivated by recent successes where category theory was used to model a wide range of phenomena across many disciplines, e.g. open dynamical systems (including open Markov processes and open chemical reaction networks), entropy and relative entropy [6], and descriptions of computer hardware [8]. Several talks will address some of these new developments. But we are also motivated by an open problem in applied category theory, one which was observed at the most recent workshop in applied category theory (Dagstuhl, Germany, in 2015): “a weakness of semantics/CT is that the definitions play a key role. Having the right definitions makes the theorems trivial, which is the opposite of hard subjects where they have combinatorial proofs of theorems (and simple definitions). […] In general, the audience agrees that people see category theorists only as reconstructing the things they knew already, and that is a disadvantage, because we do not give them a good reason to care enough” [1, pg. 61].

In this workshop, we wish to articulate a natural response to the above: instead of treating the reconstruction as a weakness, we should treat the use of categorical concepts as a natural part of transferring and integrating knowledge across disciplines. The restructuring employed in applied category theory cuts through jargon, helping to elucidate common themes across disciplines. Indeed, the drive for a common language and comparison of similar structures in algebra and topology is what led to the development category theory in the first place, and recent hints show that this approach is not only useful between mathematical disciplines, but between scientific ones as well. For example, the ‘Rosetta Stone’ of Baez and Stay demonstrates how symmetric monoidal closed categories capture the common structure between logic, computation, and physics [4].

[1] Samson Abramsky, John C. Baez, Fabio Gadducci, and Viktor Winschel. Categorical methods at the crossroads. Report from Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 14182, 2014.

[2] Samson Abramsky and Bob Coecke. A categorical semantics of quantum protocols. In Handbook of Quantum Logic and Quantum Structures. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2009.

[3] Michael A. Arbib and Ernest G. Manes. A categorist’s view of automata and systems. In Ernest G. Manes, editor, Category Theory Applied to Computation and Control. Springer, Berlin, 2005.

[4] John C. Baez and Mike STay. Physics, topology, logic and computation: a Rosetta stone. In Bob Coecke, editor, New Structures for Physics. Springer, Berlin, 2011.

[5] John C. Baez and Brendan Fong. A compositional framework for passive linear networks. arXiv e-prints, 2015.

[6] John C. Baez, Tobias Fritz, and Tom Leinster. A characterization of entropy in terms of information loss. Entropy, 13(11):1945–1957, 2011.

[7] Michael Fleming, Ryan Gunther, and Robert Rosebrugh. A database of categories. Journal of Symbolic Computing, 35(2):127–135, 2003.

[8] Dan R. Ghica and Achim Jung. Categorical semantics of digital circuits. In Ruzica Piskac and Muralidhar Talupur, editors, Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design. Springer, Berlin, 2016.

[9] Dimitri Kartsaklis, Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh, Stephen Pulman, and Bob Coecke. Reasoning about meaning in natural language with compact closed categories and Frobenius algebras. In Logic and Algebraic Structures in Quantum Computing and Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013.

[10] Eugenio Moggi. Notions of computation and monads. Information and Computation, 93(1):55–92, 1991.

[11] Nicholas Pippenger. Regular languages and Stone duality. Theory of Computing Systems 30(2):121–134, 1997.

[12] Robert Rosen. The representation of biological systems from the standpoint of the theory of categories. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 20(4):317–341, 1958.

[13] David I. Spivak. Category Theory for Scientists. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 2014.

[14] David I. Spivak, Christina Vasilakopoulou, and Patrick Schultz. Dynamical systems and sheaves. arXiv e-prints, 2016.

]]>

We are seeking an early-career researcher with a background in category theory, functional programming and/or electrical engineering for a one-year post-doctoral position supported by an Early-concept Grant (EAGER) from the NSF’s Systems Science program. The position will be managed through Carnegie Mellon University (PI: Eswaran Subrahmanian), but the position itself will be located at the US National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), located in Gaithersburg, Maryland outside of Washington, DC.

The project aims to develop a compositional semantics for electrical networks which is suitable for system prediction, analysis and control. This work will extend existing methods for linear circuits (featured on this blog!) to include (i) probabilistic estimates of future consumption and (ii) top-down incentives for load management. We will model a multi-layered system of such “distributed energy resources” including loads and generators (e.g., solar array vs. power plant), different types of resource aggregation (e.g., apartment to apartment building), and across several time scales. We hope to demonstrate that such a system can balance local load and generation in order to minimize expected instability at higher levels of the electrical grid.

This post is available full-time (40 hours/5 days per week) for 12 months, and can begin as early as October 1st.

For more information on this position, please contact Dr. Eswaran Subrahmanian (sub@cmu.edu) or Dr. Spencer Breiner (spencer.breiner@nist.gov).

]]>

The use of operads should make this easier. One reason is that an operad typically has more than one algebra.

Remember from Part 3: an *operad* has operations, which are abstract ways of sticking things together. An *algebra* makes these operations concrete: it specifies some sets of actual things, and how the operations in the operad get implemented as actual ways to stick these things together.

So, an operad can have one algebra in which things are described in a bare-bones, simplified way, and another algebra in which things are described in more detail. Indeed it will typically have *many* algebras, corresponding to *many* levels of detail, but let’s just think about two for a minute.

When we have a ‘less detailed’ algebra and a ‘more detailed’ algebra they will typically be related by a map

which ‘forgets the extra details’. This map should be a ‘homomorphism’ of algebras, but I’ll postpone the definition of that concept.

What we often want to do, when designing a system, is not *forget* extra detail, but rather *add* extra detail to some rough specification. There is not always a systematic way to do this. If there *is*, then we may have a homomorphism

going back the other way. This is wonderful, because it lets us automate the process of filling in the details. But we can’t always count on being able to do this—especially not if we want an optimal or even acceptable result. So, often we may have to start with an element of and search for elements of that are mapped to it by

Let me give some examples. I’ll take the operad that I described last time, and describe some of its algebras, and homomorphisms between these.

I’ll start with an algebra that has very little detail: its elements will be simple graphs. As the name suggests, these are among the simplest possible ways of thinking about networks. They just look like this:

Then I’ll give an algebra with more detail, where the vertices of our simple graphs are points in the plane. There’s nothing special about the plane: we could replace the plane by any other set, and get another algebra of our operad. For example, we could use the set of points on the surface of the Caribbean Sea, the blue stuff in the rectangle here:

That’s what we might use in a search and rescue operation. The points could represent boats, and the edges could represent communication channels.

Then I’ll give an algebra with even more detail, where two points connected by an edge can’t be too far apart. This would be good for *range-limited* communication channels.

Then I’ll give an algebra with still more detail, where the locations of the points are functions of time. Now our boats are moving around!

Okay, here we go.

The operad from last time was called Here is the network model of simple graphs. The best way to picture an operation of is as a way of sticking together a list of simple graphs to get a new simple graph.

For example, an operation

is a way of sticking together a simple graph with 3 vertices, one with 4 vertices and one with 2 vertices to get one with 9 vertices. Here’s a picture of such an operation:

Note that this operation is *itself* a simple graph. An operation in is just a simple graph with 9 vertices, where we have labelled the vertices from 1 to 9.

This operad comes with a very obvious algebra where the operations do just what I suggested. In this algebra, an element of is a simple graph with vertices, listed in order. Here is any natural number, which I’m calling ‘t’ for ‘type’.

We also need to say how the operations in act on these sets If we take simple graphs in and :

we can use our operation to stick them together and get this:

But we can also make up a more interesting algebra of Let’s call this algebra We’ll let an element of be a simple graph with vertices, listed in order, *which are points in the plane*.

My previous pictures can be reused to show how operations in act on this new algebra The only difference is that now we tread the vertices literally as points in the plane! Before you should have been imagining them as abstract points not living anywhere; now they have locations.

Now let’s make up an even more detailed algebra

What if our communication channels are ‘range-limited’? For example, what if two boats can’t communicate if they are more than 100 kilometers apart?

Then we can let an element of be a simple graph with vertices in the plane such that no two vertices connected by an edge have distance > 100.

Now the operations of our operad act in a more interesting way. If we have an operation, and we apply it to elements of our algebra, it ‘tries’ to put in new edges as it did before, but it ‘fails’ for any edge that would have length > 100. In other words, we just leave out any edges that would be too long.

It took me a while to figure this out. At first I thought the result of the operation would need to be *undefined* whenever we tried to create an edge that violated the length constraint. But in fact it acts in a perfectly well-defined way: we just don’t put in edges that would be too long!

This is good. This means that if you tell two boats to set up a communication channel, and they’re too far apart, you don’t get the ‘blue screen of death’: your setup doesn’t crash and burn. Instead, you just get a polite warning—‘communication channel not established’—and you can proceed.

The nontrivial part is to check that if we do this, we really get an algebra of our operad! There are some laws that must hold in any algebra. But since I haven’t yet described those laws, I won’t check them here. You’ll have to wait for our paper to come out.

Let’s do one more algebra today. For lack of creativity I’ll call it Now an element of is a *time-dependent* graph in the plane with vertices, listed in order. Namely, the positions of the vertices depend on time, and the presence or absence of an edge between two vertices can also depend on time. Furthermore, let’s impose the requirement that any two vertices can only connected by an edge at times when their distance is ≤ 100.

When I say ‘functions of time’ here, what ‘time’? We can model time by some interval But if you don’t like that, you can change it.

This algebra works more or less like The operations of try to create edges, but these edges only ‘take’ at times when the vertices they connect have distance ≤ 100.

There’s something here you might not like. Our operations can only try to create edges ‘for all times’… and succeed at times when the vertices are close enough. We can’t try to set up a communication channel *for a limited amount of time*.

But fear not: this is just a limitation in our chosen network model, ‘simple graphs’. With a fancier network model, we’d get a fancier operad, with fancier operations. Right now I’m trying to keep the operad simple (pun not intended), and show you a variety of different algebras.

And you might expect, we have algebra homomorphisms going from more detailed algebras to less detailed ones:

The homomorphism takes a simple graph in the plane and forgets the location of its vertices. The homomorphism depends on a choice of time For any time it takes a time-dependent graph in the plane and evaluates it *at that time*, getting a graph in the plane (which obeys the distance constraints, since the time-dependent graph obeyed those constraints at any time).

We do *not* have a homomorphism that takes a simple graph in the plane obeying our distance constraints and forgets about those constraints. There’s a map sending elements of to elements of in this way. But it’s not an algebra homomorphism! The problem is that first trying to connect two graphs with an edge and then applying may give a different result than first applying and then connecting two graphs with an edge.

In short: *a single operad has many algebras, which we can use to describe our desired system at different levels of detail. Algebra homomorphisms relate these different levels of detail.*

Next time I’ll look at some more interesting algebras of the same operad. For example, there’s one that describes a system of interacting mobile agents, which move around in some specific way, determined by their location and the locations of the agents they’re communicating with.

Even this is just the tip of the iceberg—that is, still a rather low level of detail. We can also introduce stochasticity (that is, randomness). And to go even further, we could switch to a more sophisticated operad, based on a fancier ‘network model’.

But not today.

]]>

Launched 40 years ago, the Voyagers are our longest-lived and most distant spacecraft. Voyager 2 has reached the edge of the **heliosphere**, the realm where the solar wind and the Sun’s magnetic field live. Voyager 1 has already left the heliosphere and entered interstellar space! A new movie, *The Farthest*, celebrates the Voyagers’ journey toward the stars:

What has Voyager 1 been doing lately? I’ll skip its amazing exploration of the Solar System….

On February 14, 1990, Voyager 1 took the first ever ‘family portrait’ of the Solar System as seen from outside. This includes the famous image of planet Earth known as the **Pale Blue Dot**:

Soon afterwards, its cameras were deactivated to conserve power and computer resources. The camera software has been removed from the spacecraft, so it would now be hard to get it working again. And here on Earth, the software for reading these images is no longer available!

On February 17, 1998, Voyager 1 reached a distance of 69 AU from the Sun — 69 times farther from the Sun than we are. At that moment it overtook Pioneer 10 as the most distant spacecraft from Earth! Traveling at about 17 kilometers per second, it was moving away from the Sun faster than any other spacecraft. It still is.

That’s 520 million kilometers per year — hard to comprehend. I find it easier to think about this way: it’s 3.6 AU per year. That’s really fast… but not if you’re trying to reach other stars. It will take 20,000 years just to go one light-year.

As Voyager 1 headed for interstellar space, its instruments continued to study the Solar System. Scientists at the Johns Hopkins University said that Voyager 1 entered the **termination shock** in February 2003. This is a bit like a ‘sonic boom’, but in reverse: it’s the place where the solar wind drops to below the speed of sound. Yes, sound can move through the solar wind, but only sound with extremely long wavelengths — nothing you can hear.

Some other scientists expressed doubt about this, and the issue wasn’t resolved until other data became available, since Voyager 1’s solar-wind detector had stopped working in 1990. This failure meant that termination shock detection had to be inferred from the other instruments on board. We now think that Voyager 1 reached the termination shock on December 15, 2004 — at a distance of 94 AU from the Sun.

In May 2005, a NASA press release said that Voyager 1 had reached the **
heliosheath**. This is a bubble of stagnant solar wind, moving below the speed of sound. It’s outside the termination shock but inside the

On March 31, 2006, amateur radio operators in Germany tracked and received radio waves from Voyager 1 using a 20-meter dish. They

checked their data against data from the Deep Space Network station in Madrid, Spain and yes — it matched. This was the first amateur tracking of Voyager 1!

On December 13, 2010, the the Low Energy Charged Particle device

aboard Voyager 1 showed that it passed the point where the solar wind flows away from the Sun. At this point the solar wind seems to turn sideways, due to the push of the interstellar wind. On this date, the spacecraft was approximately 17.3 billion kilometers from the Sun, or 116 AU.

In March 2011, Voyager 1 was commanded to change its orientation to measure the sideways motion of the solar wind. How? I don’t know. Its solar wind detector was broken.

But anyway, a test roll done in February had confirmed the spacecraft’s ability to maneuver and reorient itself. So, in March it rotated 70 degrees counterclockwise with respect to Earth to detect the solar wind. This was the first time the spacecraft had done any major maneuvering since the family portrait photograph of the planets was taken in 1990.

After the first roll the spacecraft had no problem in reorienting itself with Alpha Centauri, Voyager 1’s guide star, and it resumed sending transmissions back to Earth.

On December 1, 2011, it was announced that Voyager 1 had detected the first Lyman-alpha radiation originating from the Milky Way galaxy. Lyman-alpha radiation had previously been detected from other galaxies, but because of interference from the Sun, the radiation from the Milky Way was not detectable.

**Puzzle:** What the heck is Lyman-alpha radiation?

On December 5, 2011, Voyager 1 saw that the Solar System’s magnetic field had doubled in strength, basically because it was getting compressed by the pressure of the interstellar wind. Energetic particles originating in the Solar System declined by nearly half, while the detection of high-energy electrons from outside increased 100-fold.

In June 2012, NASA announced that the probe was detecting even more charged particles from interstellar space. This meant that it was getting close to the **heliopause**: the place where the gas of interstellar space crashes into the solar wind.

Voyager 1 actually crossed the heliopause in August 2012, although it took another year to confirm this. It was 121 AU from the Sun.

What’s next?

In about 300 years Voyager 1 will reach the **Oort cloud**, the region of frozen comets. It will take 30,000 years to pass through the Oort cloud. Though it is not heading towards any particular star, in about 40,000 years it will pass within 1.6 light-years of the star Gliese 445.

NASA says:

to wander the Milky Way.

That’s an exaggeration. The Milky Way will not last forever. In just 3.85 billion years, before our Sun becomes a red giant, the Andromeda galaxy will collide with the Milky Way. In just 100 trillion years, all the stars in the Milky Way will burn out. And in just 10 quintillion years, the Milky Way will have disintegrated, with all the dead stars either falling into black holes or being flung off into intergalactic space.

But still: the Voyagers’ journeys are just beginning. Let’s wish them a happy 40th birthday!

My story here is adapted from this Wikipedia article:

• Wikipedia, Voyager 1.

You can download PDFs of posters commemorating the Voyagers here:

• NASA, NASA and iconic museum honor Voyager spacecraft 40th anniversary, August 30, 2017.

]]>

That’s what our team came up with: John Foley of Metron, my graduate students Blake Pollard and Joseph Moeller, and myself. We’re writing a couple of papers on this, and I’ll let you know when they’re ready. These blog articles are kind of sneak preview—and a gentle introduction, where you can ask questions.

For example: I’m talking a lot about networks. But what is a ‘network’, exactly?

There are many kinds. At the crudest level, we can model a network as a simple graph, which is something like this:

There are some restrictions on what counts as a simple graph. If the vertices are agents of some sort and the edges are communication channels, these restrictions imply:

• We allow at most one channel between any pair of agents, since there’s at most one edge between any two vertices of our graph.

• The channels do not have a favored direction, since there are no arrows on the edges of our graph.

• We don’t allow a channel from an agent to itself, since an edge can’t start and end at the same vertex.

For other purposes we may want to drop some or all of these restrictions. There is an appalling diversity of options! We might want to allow multiple channels between a pair of agents. For this we could use multigraphs. We might want to allow directed channels, where the sender and receiver have different capabilities: for example, signals may only be able to flow in one direction. For this we could use directed graphs. And so on.

We will also want to consider graphs with colored vertices, to specify different types of agents—or colored edges, to specify different types of channels. Even more complicated variants are likely to become important as we proceed.

To avoid sinking into a mire of special cases, we need the full power of modern mathematics. Instead of separately studying all these various kinds of networks, we need a unified notion that subsumes all of them.

To do this, the Metron team came up with something called a ‘network model’. There is a network model for simple graphs, a network model for multigraphs, a network model for directed graphs, a network model for directed graphs with 3 colors of vertex and 15 colors of edge, and more.

You should think of a network model as a *kind of network*. Not a specific network, just a *kind* of network.

Our team proved that for each network model there is an operad whose operations describe how to put together networks of that kind. We call such operads ‘network operads’.

I want to make all this precise, but today let me just show you one example. Let’s take to be the network model for simple graphs, and look at the network operad I won’t tell you what kind of thing is yet! But I’ll tell you about the operad .

• **Types.** Remember from last time that an operad has a set of ‘types’. For this is the set of natural numbers, The reason is that a simple graph can have any number of vertices.

• **Operations.** Remember that an operad has sets of ‘operations’. In our case we have a set of operations for each choice of

An operation is a way of taking a simple graph with vertices, a simple graph with vertices,… and so on, and sticking them together, perhaps adding new edges, to get a simple graph with

vertices.

Let me show you an operation

This will be a way of taking three simple graphs—one with 3 vertices, one with 4, and one with 2—and sticking them together, perhaps adding edges, to get one with 9 vertices.

Here’s what looks like:

It’s a simple graph with vertices numbered from 1 to 9, with the vertices in bunches: {1,2,3}, {4,5,6,7} and {8,9}. It could be any such graph. This one happens to have an edge from 3 to 6 and an edge from 1 to 2.

Here’s how we can actually use our operation. Say we have three simple graphs like this:

Then we can use our operation to stick them together and get this:

Notice that we added a new edge from 3 to 6, connecting two of our three simple graphs. We also added an edge from 1 to 2… but this had no effect, since there was already an edge there! The reason is that simple graphs have at most one edge between vertices.

But what if we didn’t already have an edge from 1 to 2? What if we applied our operation to the following simple graphs?

Well, now we’d get this:

This time adding the edge from 1 to 2 had an effect, since there wasn’t already an edge there!

In short, we can use this operad to stick together simple graphs, but also to add new edges *within* the simple graphs we’re sticking together!

When I’m telling you how we ‘actually use’ our operad to stick together graphs, I’m secretly describing an *algebra* of our operad. Remember, an operad describes ways of sticking together things together, but an ‘algebra’ of the operad gives a particular specification of these things and describes how we stick them together.

Our operad has lots of interesting algebras, but I’ve just shown you the simplest one. More precisely:

• **Things.** Remember from last time that for each type, an algebra specifies a set of **things** of that type. In this example our types are natural numbers, and for each natural number I’m letting the set of things consist of all simple graphs with vertices

• **Action.** Remember that our operad should have an **action** on , meaning a bunch of maps

I just described how this works in some examples. Some rules should hold… and they do.

To make sure you understand, try these puzzles:

**Puzzle 1.** In the example I just explained, what is the set if

**Puzzle 2.** In this example, how many elements does have?

**Puzzle 3.** In this example, how many elements does have?

**Puzzle 4.** In this example, how many elements does have?

**Puzzle 5.** In the particular algebra that I explained, how many elements does have?

Next time I’ll describe some more interesting algebras of this operad These let us describe networks of mobile agents with range-limited communication channels!

]]>

• Complex adaptive system design (part 1), *Azimuth*, 2 October 2016.

• Complex adaptive system design (part 2), *Azimuth*, 18 October 2016.

A lot has happened since then, and I want to explain it.

I’m working with Metron Scientific Solutions to develop new techniques for designing complex networks.

The particular problem we began cutting our teeth on is a search and rescue mission where a bunch of boats, planes and drones have to locate and save people who fall overboard during a boat race in the Caribbean Sea. Subsequently the Metron team expanded the scope to other search and rescue tasks. But the real goal is to develop *very generally* applicable new ideas on designing and ‘tasking’ networks of mobile agents—that is, designing these networks and telling the agents what to do.

We’re using the mathematics of ‘operads’, in part because Spivak’s work on operads has drawn a lot of attention and raised a lot of hopes:

• David Spivak, The operad of wiring diagrams: formalizing a graphical language for databases, recursion, and plug-and-play circuits.

An operad is a bunch of operations for sticking together smaller things to create bigger ones—I’ll explain this in detail later, but that’s the core idea. Spivak described some specific operads called ‘operads of wiring diagrams’ and illustrated some of their potential applications. But when we got going on our project, we wound up using a different class of operads, which I’ll call ‘network operads’.

Here’s our dream, which we’re still trying to make into a reality:

Network operads should make it easy to build a big network from smaller ones and have every agent know what to do. You should be able to ‘slap together’ a network, throwing in more agents and more links between them, and automatically have it do something reasonable. This should be more flexible than an approach where you need to know ahead of time exactly how many agents you have, and how they’re connected, before you can tell them what to do.

You don’t want a network to malfunction horribly because you forgot to hook it up correctly. You want to focus your attention on *optimizing* the network, not getting it to work at all. And you want everything to work so smoothly that it’s easy for the network to adapt to changing conditions.

To achieve this we’re using network operads, which are certain special ‘typed operads’. So before getting into the details of our approach, I should say a bit about typed operads. And I think that will be enough for today’s post: I don’t want to overwhelm you with too much information at once.

In general, a ‘typed operad’ describes ways of sticking together things of various types to get new things of various types. An ‘algebra’ of the operad gives a particular specification of these things and the results of sticking them together. For now I’ll skip the full definition of a typed operad and only highlight the most important features. A typed operad has:

• a set of **types**.

• collections of **operations** where . Here are the types of the **inputs**, while is the type of the **output**.

• ways to **compose** operations. Given an operation

and operations

we can compose them to get

These must obey some rules.

But if you haven’t seen operads before, you’re probably reeling in horror—so I need to rush in and save you by showing you the all-important *pictures* that help explain what’s going on!

First of all, you should visualize an operation as a little gizmo like this:

It has inputs at top and one output at bottom. Each input, and the output, has a ‘type’ taken from the set So, for example, if you operation takes two real numbers, adds them and spits out the closest integer, both input types would be ‘real’, while the output type would be ‘integer’.

The main thing we do with operations is compose them. Given an an operation we can compose it with operations

by feeding their outputs into the inputs of like this:

The result is an operation we call

Note that the input types of have to match the output types of the for this to work! This is the whole point of types: *they forbid us from composing operations in ways that don’t make sense*.

This avoids certain stupid mistakes. For example, you can take the square root of a positive number, but you may not want to take the square root of a negative number, and you definitely don’t want to take the square root of a hamburger. While you can land a plane on an airstrip, you probably don’t want to land a plane on a person.

The operations in an operad are quite abstract: they aren’t really operating *on* anything. To render them concrete, we need another idea: operads have ‘algebras’.

An algebra of the operad specifies a set of things of each type such that the operations of act on these sets. A bit more precisely, an algebra consists of:

• for each type a set of **things of type**

• an **action** of on that is, a collection of maps

obeying some rules.

In other words, an algebra turns each operation into a function that eats things of types and spits out a thing of type

When we get to designing systems with operads, the fact that the same operad can have many algebras will be useful. Our operad will have operations describing *abstractly* how to hook up networks to form larger networks. An algebra will give a specific *implementation* of these operations. We can use one algebra that’s fairly fine-grained and detailed about what the operations actually do, and another that’s less detailed. There will then be a map between from the first algebra to the second, called an ‘algebra homomorphism’, that forgets some fine-grained details.

There’s a lot more to say—all this is just the mathematical equivalent of clearing my throat before a speech—but I’ll stop here for now.

And as I do—since it also takes me time to *stop* talking—I should make it clear yet again that I haven’t even given the full definition of typed operads and their algebras! Besides the laws I didn’t write down, there’s other stuff I omitted. Most notably, there’s a way to permute the inputs of an operation in an operad, and operads have identity operations, one for each type.

To see the full definition of an ‘untyped’ operad, which is really an operad with *just one type*, go here:

• Wikipedia, Operad theory.

They just call it an ‘operad’. Note that they first explain ‘non-symmetric operads’, where you can’t permute the inputs of operations, and then explain operads, where you can.

If you’re mathematically sophisticated, you can easily guess the laws obeyed by a typed operad just by looking at this article and inserting the missing types. You can also see the laws written down in Spivak’s paper, but with some different terminology: he calls types ‘objects’, he calls operations ‘morphisms’, and he calls typed operads ‘symmetric colored operads’—or once he gets going, just ‘operads’.

You can also see the definition of a typed operad in Section 2.1 here:

• Donald Yau, Operads of wiring diagrams.

What I would call a typed operad with as its set of types, he calls an ‘-colored operad’.

I guess it’s already evident, but I’ll warn you that the terminology in this subject varies quite a lot from author to author: for example, a certain community calls typed operads ‘symmetric multicategories’. This is annoying at first but once you understand the subject it’s as ignorable as the fact that mathematicians have many different accents. The main thing to remember is that operads come in four main flavors, since they can either be typed or untyped, and they can either let you permute inputs or not. I’ll always be working with typed operads where you can permute inputs.

Finally, I’ll say that while the definition of operad looks lengthy and cumbersome at first, it becomes lean and elegant if you use more category theory.

Next time I’ll give you an example of an operad: the simplest ‘network

operad’.

]]>

• Norbert Blum, A solution of the P versus NP problem.

Most papers that claim to solve hard math problems are wrong: that’s why these problems are considered hard. But these papers can still be fun to look at, at least if they’re not *obviously* wrong. It’s fun to hope that maybe today humanity has found another beautiful grain of truth.

I’m not an expert on the P versus NP problem, so I have no opinion on this paper. So don’t get excited: wait calmly by your radio until you hear from someone who actually works on this stuff.

I found the first paragraph interesting, though. Here it is, together with some highly non-expert commentary. Beware: everything I say could be wrong!

Understanding the power of negations is one of the most challenging problems in complexity theory. With respect to monotone Boolean functions, Razborov [12] was the first who could shown that the gain, if using negations, can be super-polynomial in comparision to monotone Boolean networks. Tardos [16] has improved this to exponential.

I guess a ‘Boolean network’ is like a machine where you feed in a string of bits and it computes new bits using the logical operations ‘and’, ‘or’ and ‘not’. If you leave out ‘not’ the Boolean network is **monotone**, since then making more inputs equal to 1, or ‘true’, is bound to make more of the output bits 1 as well. Blum is saying that including ‘not’ makes some computations vastly more efficient… but that this stuff is hard to understand.

For the characteristic function of an NP-complete problem like the clique function, it is widely believed that negations cannot help enough to improve the Boolean complexity from exponential to polynomial.

A bunch of nodes in a graph are a **clique** if each of these nodes is connected by an edge to every other. Determining whether a graph with vertices has a clique with more than nodes is a famous problem: the **clique decision problem**.

For example, here’s a brute-force search for a clique with at least 4 nodes:

The clique decision problem is **NP-complete**. This means that if you can solve it with a Boolean network whose complexity grows like some polynomial in n, then P = NP. But if you can’t, then P ≠ NP.

(Don’t ask me what the complexity of a Boolean network is; I can guess but I could get it wrong.)

I guess Blum is hinting that the best *monotone* Boolean network for solving the clique decision problem has a complexity that’s exponential in And then he’s saying it’s widely believed that not gates can’t reduce the complexity to a polynomial.

Since the computation of an one-tape Turing machine can be simulated by a non-monotone Boolean network of size at most the square of the number of steps [15, Ch. 3.9], a superpolynomial lower bound for the non-monotone network complexity of such a function would imply P ≠ NP.

Now he’s saying what I said earlier: if you show it’s impossible to solve the clique decision problem with any Boolean network whose complexity grows like some polynomial in n, then you’ve shown P ≠ NP. This is how Blum intends to prove P ≠ NP.

For the monotone complexity of such a function, exponential lower bounds are known [11, 3, 1, 10, 6, 8, 4, 2, 7].

Should you trust someone who claims they’ve proved P ≠ NP, but can’t manage to get their references listed in increasing order?

But until now, no one could prove a non-linear lower bound for the nonmonotone complexity of any Boolean function in NP.

That’s a great example of how helpless we are: we’ve got all these problems whose complexity should grow faster than any polynomial, and we can’t even prove their complexity grows faster than *linear*. Sad!

An obvious attempt to get a super-polynomial lower bound for the non-monotone complexity of the clique function could be the extension of the method which has led to the proof of an exponential lower bound of its monotone complexity. This is the so-called “method of approximation” developed by Razborov [11].

I don’t know about this. All I know is that Razborov and Rudich proved a whole bunch of strategies for proving P ≠ NP can’t possibly work. These strategies are called ‘natural proofs’. Here are some friendly blog articles on their result:

• Timothy Gowers, How not to prove that P is not equal to NP, 3 October 2013.

• Timothy Gowers, Razborov and Rudich’s natural proofs argument, 7 October 2013.

From these I get the impression that what Blum calls ‘Boolean networks’ may be what other people call ‘Boolean circuits’. But I could be wrong!

Continuing:

Razborov [13] has shown that his approximation method cannot be used to prove better than quadratic lower bounds for the non-monotone complexity of a Boolean function.

So, this method is unable to prove some NP problem can’t be solved in polynomial time and thus prove P ≠ NP. Bummer!

But Razborov uses a very strong distance measure in his proof for the inability of the approximation method. As elaborated in [5], one can use the approximation method with a weaker distance measure to prove a super-polynomial lower bound for the non-monotone complexity of a Boolean function.

This reference [5] is to another paper by Blum. And in the end, he claims to use similar methods to prove that the complexity of any Boolean network that solves the clique decision problem must grow faster than a polynomial.

So, if you’re trying to check his proof that P ≠ NP, you should probably start by checking that other paper!

The picture below, by Behnam Esfahbod on Wikicommons, shows the two possible scenarios. The one at left is the one Norbert Blum claims to have shown we’re in.

]]>