It's great seeing how these people work with science for the sake of science itself, because it's beautiful, not because they suspect that they'll find something that immediately changes the world. It makes me think that they see themselves more as artists than as engineers, and I think that if you have a career in science it's a healthy approach to have. Most scientists never have an "Einstein-like" breakthrough, but contribute pieces to the puzzle that may lead to breakthroughs long after they're gone. Being satisfied with that is probably key to having peace of mind as a scientist.

[–] Quereller@lemmy.one 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Can this have an influence on the security of certain cryptographic functions?

[–] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Yes absolutely it can.

Disclaimer: This is based on a gut feeling and no actually knowledge of the topic.

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago

Yup, the proof of the strong version (the full Reimann hypothesis) very likely lets you brute force large prime factors. This is a slightly stronger weak version, but has lots of interesting new bits in a field that has been stagnant for a long time. Those functions were going away on Q-day anyway, and we already have functions that are resistant to both, but now there are two Damoclean swords hanging over all that encrypted data the NSA and others have been hoovering up for years.

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 month ago

I like this rundown better...

[–] FreeLikeGNU@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Sensational claims require sensational evidence.

Carl Sagan, probably

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I looked at the image and thought it looked like the golden spiral.

But it isn't.

Then I thought it looked like an optical illusion. The ones where when you tilt it you can see a word.

I tilted the image sideways. (To the right)

It looks like a toroid.