The Key to Every Lock

Pretty much every security system of the digital age is rooted on a mathematical assumption, that certain classes of problems will take forever to solve (even by the fastest classical computers of the future, but not quantum computers) while at the same time any solution can be checked very quickly. A maze is a good example of such problems: depending on complexity and size, finding the path from A to B could take forever, but any solution can be checked very fast (in comparison).

Here is the risk: what if that assumption is wrong? What if a generic solution does exist to solve such problems quickly? In fact, there is a $1 million reward for anyone who can prove whether or not this assumption is correct (in mathematical lingo, this is called the “P versus NP problem”).

In an episode of Sherlock, the modernized (and awesome) BBC version of the detective, his arch-enemy, James Moriarty says he has found a way to break into any security system anywhere in the world:
“I can open any door anywhere with a few tiny lines of computer code. No such thing as a private bank account now, they're all mine. No such thing as secrecy. I own secrecy. Nuclear codes. I could blow up NATO in alphabetical order. In a world of locked rooms, the man with the key is king, and honey, you should see me in a crown.”
(I will digress here for a minute, but here’s how Moriarty looks with a crown, which he wears when he breaks into, where else, the Tower of London!)


So, at least in the story, Moriarty solved the P versus NP problem! Except he didn’t. Later in the episode, he taunts Holmes by saying he never had the key to all the rooms:
“I knew you'd fall for it. That's your weakness. You always want everything to be clever.”
It is so heartening to know that even super-villains like Moriarty can’t solve the P versus NP problem. We can all transact on the Internet again!

Talking of Sherlock, I am so curious to see how they bring back the detective from his last season ending fall to the death. Will be glued to AXN this Friday for that episode. And while they are at it, please, please, bring back Moriarty as well, because as this guy on Reddit, Canuckfanatic, wrote about the actor who plays Moriarty:
“He goes from calm to nuclear explosion instantly, and it's terrifyingly brilliant.”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Europe #3 - Innsbruck

The last city we visited in Europe was Innsbruck in the Austrian Alps. After the cold and windy experience (at times) of Paris and Netherlands, Innsbruck was a wonderful change – it didn’t feel that cold, it was not windy all of which made it easy to walk around. Something absolutely necessary given how scenic the place is.   Since the hotel check-in time was much later in the day, we left the baggage and went to the Swarovski HQ-cum-museum about an hour by bus from Innsbruck. The crystal exhibits were brilliant – colorful, bright, shiny. Jewellery aside, it was a display of what one can do with crystals. While my wife and daughter loved the jewellery, I liked the superhero themed exhibits of Batman, Spiderman, the Hulk, and Star Wars. We didn’t buy anything there, though we did buy stuff in the Swarovski store in Innsbruck – jewellery, not the superhero stuff.   Innsbruck is a major tourist attraction during the skiing season but now in summer, we saw many groups of ...
Read more

Chess is too Boring

“Chess has problems at the grandmaster level...They're not getting a great game”, wrote Christian Donlan . Amen to that: Anand and his challenger, Magnus Carlsen drew their first game in just 16 moves. It gets worse: games between the top 20 end in draws 60% of the time. And Donlan adds that “games often end in resignation when an actual victory starts to loom on the distant horizon.” That often means that the average player (or fan) often has no clue why one guy won (since he can’t see that far ahead)! Then there’s all that memorization (of openings, of end games and everything in between). All that memorization is sort of against the spirit of the game, says Zachary Burns, “We want it to be a game of creativity and positional play.” Many have tried to change the rules of the game in the past for these exact reasons, including Bobby Fischer with his Chess960 variant. More recently, David Sirlin tried to make things interesting via his variant, Chess 2. So what are his c...
Read more

Why we Deceive Ourselves

In their book, The Elephant in the Brain , the authors describe this weird aspect of deception that we practice: deceiving ourselves! That is so weird: “If our minds contain maps of our worlds, what good comes from having an inaccurate version of these maps?” The Sigmund Freud school of thought treats self-deception as a defense mechanism, “a way for the ego to protect itself”. The mind seeks to protect itself from anxiety and other negative emotions. Many object to this reasoning: since accurate information is so critical to our survival, surely distorting information would be dangerous. Wouldn’t the goal of protecting our self-esteem have been better achieved by making the brain’s self-esteem mechanism stronger instead? The new school of thought explains self-deception as “primarily outward-facing, manipulative, and ultimately self-serving”. This is based on Thomas Schelling’s work on game theory: “In a variety of scenarios, limiting or sabotaging yourself is the winn...
Read more