My reply indicates that that GP was instructed to think outside the plan rather than naming the thing “thinking outside the plane.” It’s a tongue-in-cheek critique of the lack of quotes around the phrase making ambiguous the intent of the parent to my post.
If we have polynomial with integer coefficients, we can bound the largest and smallest root by an expression that is maximum of abs. value of coefficients to some power. There should be similar bounds for the smallest imaginary value a root can have. If your polynomial have real numbers for coefficients having a formula doesn't help - we have the same problem of being not able to tell if number is equal zero. For example in the quadratic formula, we can have discriminant equal minus epsilon. If epsilon was zero there is no imaginary root but if it isn't we have an imaginary root.
> The MathOverflow corporation is completely independent from Stack Exchange and its mission is to ensure the continued operation of the site in a manner that meets the needs and expectations of the community.
Does it make it more or less hostile than Stack Exchange?
They claim "The MathOverflow corporation is completely independent from Stack Exchange"
and then when you click Legal notice, you see that all conditions and legal of Stack Exchange applies.
In addition:
> This letter is to confirm that, per our communications, that MathOverflow ("MathOverflow") agrees that the website, MathOverflow (located at www.mathoverflow.net, www.mathoverflow.com and www.mathoverflow. org (the "MathOverflow Domains"), the assets of which are owned and controlled by MathOverflow, will be upgraded to Stack Exchange, Inc.'s ("Stack Exchange") version 2.0 software model and, in conjunction with this upgrade, MathOverflow accepts Stack Exchange 2.0's Terms of Service (http://stackexchange.com/legal/tems-of-service, the "Terms"
===
"completely independent" is perhaps exaggerated claim.
MSE is sometimes perceived as hostile to beginners because it often closes off newbie questions that lack context or are thought to be of low quality. MO is not suffering from this because almost all such questions are migrated to MSE. In this sense, yes, MO is less hostile than MSE because its hostility is outsourced to MSE.
My experience with MathOverflow was funny, the first time I posted a question it was almost immediatly downvoted and criticized by the moderators. Later the same day, I was surprised when my question was answered by Terence Tao, then the moderators quickly changed their opinion and people started to upvote the question.
Mathematics even worse than Software Engineering because lay practitioner can miss significance of question. If you have link to question, would appreciate. Just out of curiosity to see if I would realize why question is interesting. That in itself is a skill.
I suspect they will fail to emphasize the ShareAlike property of CC BY-SA 2.5/3.0/4.0 which is incredibly strong - "ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original". This is an incredibly wide and vague definition, especially "build upon" which will be unattractive to many users.
I suspect, if ChatGPT quotes an answer or a snippet it will show attribution and a license for snippet. If it instead only uses the knowledge it gained from the answer/snippet and writes it's own answer, then, just like a human, it won't attribute
It was especially hilarious to watch the CTO of OpenAI get asked if they scrape YouTube, and could not say yes or no [0]. Possibly one of the most important sites in the Internet, and they're CTO claims ignorance.
If you don't have an authenticated channel, you are susceptible to a MITM attack which makes any asymmetric crypto useless. Thus I think there is an implicit assumption in any asymmetric crypto that you already have an authenticated channel. Or did I miss something?
Grossly simplifying, Alice and Bob may establish an authenticated channel either by physical means (a wire) or by some combination of certificates/passwords and out-of-band authentication. Most of the time, QKD implicitly assumes the former - a line-of-sight connection or a fiber-optics cable. In these circumstances the parties might as well exchange flash drives with one-time pads, similarly to how the Kremlin-White House hotline was protected.
I'm not a huge fan of QKD, but there is a potential use case for it. Basically, for digital signatures we have schemes like SPHINCS+, and perhaps also PICNIC and FAEST, which don't require "mathematically structured" assumptions like other public-key crypto, but instead are secure based on not much more than one-way functions. If (and it's a big if) quantum computers can break all those structured assumptions but not AES/SHA, then we would still have secure public-key signatures, certificates etc but not KEMs.
But QKD can, in principle, securely distribute keys if you have a way to exchange quantum state (e.g. line-of-sight or some sort of currently-nonexistent quantum router) and a classical authenticated channel. SPHINCS+ could provide that authenticated channel. In that case QKD would enable secure key exchange even between parties who don't have a pre-shared secret.
Of course right now, all of that is science fiction.
reply