organization:university of new south wales

  • Mathematicians Discover the Perfect Way to Multiply | Quanta Magazine
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-discover-the-perfect-way-to-multiply-20190411

    Four thousand years ago, the Babylonians invented multiplication. Last month, mathematicians perfected it.

    On March 18, two researchers described the fastest method ever discovered for multiplying two very large numbers. The paper marks the culmination of a long-running search to find the most efficient procedure for performing one of the most basic operations in math.

    “Everybody thinks basically that the method you learn in school is the best one, but in fact it’s an active area of research,” said Joris van der Hoeven, a mathematician at the French National Center for Scientific Research and one of the co-authors.

    The complexity of many computational problems, from calculating new digits of pi to finding large prime numbers, boils down to the speed of multiplication. Van der Hoeven describes their result as setting a kind of mathematical speed limit for how fast many other kinds of problems can be solved.

    “In physics you have important constants like the speed of light which allow you to describe all kinds of phenomena,” van der Hoeven said. “If you want to know how fast computers can solve certain mathematical problems, then integer multiplication pops up as some kind of basic building brick with respect to which you can express those kinds of speeds.”

    Most everyone learns to multiply the same way. We stack two numbers, multiply every digit in the bottom number by every digit in the top number, and do addition at the end. If you’re multiplying two two-digit numbers, you end up performing four smaller multiplications to produce a final product.

    The grade school or “carrying” method requires about n2 steps, where n is the number of digits of each of the numbers you’re multiplying. So three-digit numbers require nine multiplications, while 100-digit numbers require 10,000 multiplications.

    The carrying method works well for numbers with just a few digits, but it bogs down when we’re multiplying numbers with millions or billions of digits (which is what computers do to accurately calculate pi or as part of the worldwide search for large primes). To multiply two numbers with 1 billion digits requires 1 billion squared, or 1018, multiplications, which would take a modern computer roughly 30 years.

    For millennia it was widely assumed that there was no faster way to multiply. Then in 1960, the 23-year-old Russian mathematician Anatoly Karatsuba took a seminar led by Andrey Kolmogorov, one of the great mathematicians of the 20th century. Kolmogorov asserted that there was no general procedure for doing multiplication that required fewer than n2 steps. Karatsuba thought there was — and after a week of searching, he found it.

    Karatsuba’s method involves breaking up the digits of a number and recombining them in a novel way that allows you to substitute a small number of additions and subtractions for a large number of multiplications. The method saves time because addition takes only 2n steps, as opposed to n2 steps.

    “With addition, you do it a year earlier in school because it’s much easier, you can do it in linear time, almost as fast as reading the numbers from right to left,” said Martin Fürer, a mathematician at Pennsylvania State University who in 2007 created what was at the time the fastest multiplication algorithm.

    When dealing with large numbers, you can repeat the Karatsuba procedure, splitting the original number into almost as many parts as it has digits. And with each splitting, you replace multiplications that require many steps to compute with additions and subtractions that require far fewer.

    “You can turn some of the multiplications into additions, and the idea is additions will be faster for computers,” said David Harvey, a mathematician at the University of New South Wales and a co-author on the new paper.

    Karatsuba’s method made it possible to multiply numbers using only n1.58 single-digit multiplications. Then in 1971 Arnold Schönhage and Volker Strassen published a method capable of multiplying large numbers in n × log n × log(log n) multiplicative steps, where log n is the logarithm of n. For two 1-billion-digit numbers, Karatsuba’s method would require about 165 trillion additional steps.

    Schönhage and Strassen’s method, which is how computers multiply huge numbers, had two other important long-term consequences. First, it introduced the use of a technique from the field of signal processing called a fast Fourier transform. The technique has been the basis for every fast multiplication algorithm since.

    Second, in that same paper Schönhage and Strassen conjectured that there should be an even faster algorithm than the one they found — a method that needs only n × log n single-digit operations — and that such an algorithm would be the fastest possible. Their conjecture was based on a hunch that an operation as fundamental as multiplication must have a limit more elegant than n × log n × log(log n).

    “It was kind of a general consensus that multiplication is such an important basic operation that, just from an aesthetic point of view, such an important operation requires a nice complexity bound,” Fürer said. “From general experience the mathematics of basic things at the end always turns out to be elegant.”

    Schönhage and Strassen’s ungainly n × log n × log(log n) method held on for 36 years. In 2007 Fürer beat it and the floodgates opened. Over the past decade, mathematicians have found successively faster multiplication algorithms, each of which has inched closer to n × log n, without quite reaching it. Then last month, Harvey and van der Hoeven got there.

    Their method is a refinement of the major work that came before them. It splits up digits, uses an improved version of the fast Fourier transform, and takes advantage of other advances made over the past forty years. “We use [the fast Fourier transform] in a much more violent way, use it several times instead of a single time, and replace even more multiplications with additions and subtractions,” van der Hoeven said.

    Harvey and van der Hoeven’s algorithm proves that multiplication can be done in n × log n steps. However, it doesn’t prove that there’s no faster way to do it. Establishing that this is the best possible approach is much more difficult. At the end of February, a team of computer scientists at Aarhus University posted a paper arguing that if another unproven conjecture is also true, this is indeed the fastest way multiplication can be done.

    And while the new algorithm is important theoretically, in practice it won’t change much, since it’s only marginally better than the algorithms already being used. “The best we can hope for is we’re three times faster,” van der Hoeven said. “It won’t be spectacular.”

    In addition, the design of computer hardware has changed. Two decades ago, computers performed addition much faster than multiplication. The speed gap between multiplication and addition has narrowed considerably over the past 20 years to the point where multiplication can be even faster than addition in some chip architectures. With some hardware, “you could actually do addition faster by telling the computer to do a multiplication problem, which is just insane,” Harvey said.

    Hardware changes with the times, but best-in-class algorithms are eternal. Regardless of what computers look like in the future, Harvey and van der Hoeven’s algorithm will still be the most efficient way to multiply.

    #mathematiques #multiplication

  • CppCast Episode 165: Formal Verification with Matt Fernandez
    http://isocpp.org/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&feed=All+Posts&seed=http%3A%2F%2Fisocpp.org%2Fblog%2F2

    Episode 165 of CppCast the only podcast for C++ developers by C++ developers. In this episode Rob and Jason are joined by Matt Fernandez from Intel Labs to discuss Formal Verification.

    CppCast Episode 165: Formal Verification with Matt Fernandez by Rob Irving and Jason Turner

    About the interviewee:

    Matthew Fernandez is a Research Scientist with Intel Labs. Matt began his programming career building Windows GUI applications and designing databases, before moving into operating system architecture and security. He has a PhD in formal verification of operating systems from the University of New South Wales in Australia, and worked with the Australian research group Data61. In the past, he has worked on compilers, device drivers and hypervisors, and now spends his days (...)

    #News,Video&_On-Demand,

  • Formal Verification with Matt Fernandez
    http://cppcast.libsyn.com/formal-verification-with-matt-fernandez

    Rob and Jason are joined by Matt Fernandez from Intel Labs to discuss Formal Verification. Matthew Fernandez is a Research Scientist with Intel Labs. Matt began his programming career building Windows GUI applications and designing databases, before moving into operating system architecture and security. He has a PhD in formal verification of operating systems from the University of New South Wales in Australia, and worked with the Australian research group Data61. In the past, he has worked on compilers, device drivers and hypervisors, and now spends his days exploring new tools and techniques for functional correctness and verification of security properties. On the weekends, you can usually find Matt in a park with a good book, hunting for good coffee or helping a newbie debug (...)

    http://traffic.libsyn.com/cppcast/cppcast-165.mp3?dest-id=282890

  • Satellite eye on Australia’s vegetation
    TERN - Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network: Newsletter 2016 Mar AusCover Biomass
    http://www.tern.org.au/Newsletter-2016-Mar-AusCover-Biomass-pg31410.html

    Australia is a vast country with a wide range of diverse ecosystems. To gain an understanding of their values in terms of, for example, carbon stocks and biodiversity, and how these change over time, we need to make use of our extensive archive of satellite remote sensing data. By exploiting these data, we can quantify the state of ecosystems, their dynamics and the impacts of different land use and management policies and practices.

    TERN’s AusCover facility is taking a leading role in working with state, national and international stakeholders to improve access to satellite sensor data and facilitate the generation of products relevant to the Australian environment.

    In conjunction with TERN AusCover, the Joint Remote Sensing Research Program (JRSRP), which is run out of the University of Queensland, has been working with Australian and international scientists to generate detailed national maps of the structure (height and cover) and biomass of woody vegetation and to construct a National Biomass Library. These datasets and repositories provide essential baselines against which future changes in the biomass and structure of vegetation can be quantified.The team, which includes Dr. John Armston and Dr. Peter Scarth (QLD Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation and the University of Queensland), Professor Richard Lucas (University of New South Wales), Dr. Peter Bunting (Aberystwyth University, UK) and Dr. Dan Clewley (Plymouth Marine Laboratory, UK) have been collaborating with the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) on their Kyoto and Carbon (K&C) Initiative for over a decade.


    #Australie #image_satelitte #biomasse #végétation #cartographie

  • Campaign to Stop Killer Robots warns UN of threat ’a few years away’ | Technology | The Guardian

    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/20/campaign-to-stop-killer-robots-warning-united-nations

    Experts in artificial intelligence, lawyers and activists organized by the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots gathered at the United Nations on Tuesday to warn against a growing reliance on cheap drones and “stupid AI” that can be unpredictable in the real world.

    “Terminator always comes up,” Toby Walsh, a professor of artificial intelligence at the University of New South Wales, told reporters on Tuesday, referring to the sci-fi cyborg on a mission to wipe out mankind. “But it’s not really Terminator that we’re worried about at the moment. I think that Terminator is perhaps 50 or so years away.”

    #drones #robots_tueurs

  • Is Our Universe a Big Schrödinger’s Cat—Where It’s Alive Is Where We Live? | The Crux | Discover Magazine
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/01/is-our-universe-a-big-schrodingers-cat-where-its-alive-is-wh

    Recently, astrophysicist John Webb of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and colleagues published new findings that indicate that the fine structure constant may not be a constant after all—it may vary through space or time. Through observations of galaxies that lie 12 billion light-years roughly to the north with those at the same distance lying to the south, the team discovered variations in the fine structure constant amounting to about 1 part in 100,000. It is not clear whether quantum effects would drastically change when a fundamental constant such as the fine structure constant varies by such minute amounts. But if they do, and the change in the constant is significant, it could mean that there are universes—or distant parts of our own universe—where matter as we know it, and hence life, could not exist.