一座新桥梁连接了无穷数学与计算机科学。
A new bridge links the math of infinity to computer science

原始链接: https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-bridge-links-the-strange-math-of-infinity-to-computer-science-20251121/

数学家亚历克斯·伯恩斯坦研究图着色问题,具体来说,如何为由边连接的节点着色,使得相邻节点不共享颜色。这些问题根据“可测性”——着色集合的可量化程度——在描述集合论中进行分类。最初,伯恩斯坦专注于按颜色数量对这些问题进行“分层”(双色最简单,三色更复杂),但他在一次关于“分布式算法”的计算机科学讲座上,他的研究方向发生了转变。 他注意到一个惊人的平行:计算机科学家在分配Wi-Fi路由器的频率以避免干扰时,面临着类似的着色挑战,使用的是*局部*算法,即路由器只与邻居通信。这些算法的效率——它们需要多少步——似乎反映了集合论中可测图着色的阈值。 伯恩斯坦认为这两个领域之间存在着深刻的联系,甚至可能是等价关系。他正在努力证明,高效的计算机科学算法可以转化为无限图中的可测着色方法,这表明这些问题本身是根本相同的,只是表达方式不同。这可能会揭示一个潜在于这两个学科的统一结构。

## 黑客新闻讨论:数学、无穷与计算机科学 一篇最近发表在《量子》杂志上的文章,探讨了无穷数学与计算机科学之间的联系,引发了黑客新闻上的讨论。核心思想是基础数学概念与计算表示之间的联系。 用户们争论了这种联系的重要性,一些人指出这种联系在两个领域早已被理解。另一些人则戏谑地提到了像`node_modules`这样的实际“无穷”。一个主要的争论点在于无穷在数学本身中的作用——一些人认为它是一个有用的构造,而另一些人则认为它是不必要的,并且并不真正存在。 讨论还涉及了数学的基础系统,特别是策梅洛-弗兰克尔集合论(ZFC)与类型论。许多人认为类型论更适合计算机科学,因为它强调不同的数据类型,这与ZFC将所有事物表示为集合形成对比。然而,也有人捍卫ZFC的优雅和最简公理化方法,认为这是它被广泛使用的原因,即使它很抽象。
相关文章

原文

Soon, you’ll have made it almost completely around the circle — meaning that you’ve assigned a color to all the nodes in your graph except for the ones that fall in a small, leftover segment. Say the last arc you colored was yellow. How do you color this final, smaller segment? You can’t use blue, because these nodes will connect to nodes in the original arc you colored blue. But you also can’t use yellow, because these nodes connect back to yellow ones from the previous arc.

You have to use a third color — say, green — to complete your coloring.

Still, the sets of blue, yellow and green nodes you end up with are all just pieces of the circle’s circumference, rather than the scatterings of points you ended up with when you used the axiom of choice. You can calculate the lengths of these sets. They’re measurable.

Descriptive set theorists therefore place the two-color version of the problem on the lowest shelf in their hierarchy (for unmeasurable sets), while the three-color problem goes on a much higher shelf of problems — ones where lots of notions of measure can be applied.

Bernshteyn spent his years in graduate school studying such coloring problems, shelving them one by one. Then, shortly after he finished his degree, he stumbled on a potential way to shelve them all at once — and to show that these problems have a much deeper and more mathematically relevant structure than anyone had realized.

Round by Round

From time to time, Bernshteyn enjoys going to computer science talks, where graphs are finite and represent networks of computers.

In 2019, one of those talks changed the course of his career. It was about “distributed algorithms” — sets of instructions that run simultaneously on multiple computers in a network to accomplish a task without a central coordinator.

Say you have a bunch of Wi-Fi routers in a building. Nearby routers can interfere with each other if they use the same communication frequency channel. So each router needs to choose a different channel from the ones used by its immediate neighbors.

Computer scientists can reframe this as a coloring problem on a graph: Represent each router as a node, and connect nearby ones with edges. Using just two colors (representing two different frequency channels), find a way to color each node so that no two connected nodes are the same color.

But there’s a catch: Nodes can only communicate with their immediate neighbors, using so-called local algorithms. First, each node runs the same algorithm and assigns itself a color. It then communicates with its neighbors to learn how other nodes are colored in a small region around it. Then it runs the algorithm again to decide whether to keep its color or switch it. It repeats this step until the whole network has a proper coloring.

Computer scientists want to know how many steps a given algorithm requires. For example, any local algorithm that can solve the router problem with only two colors must be incredibly inefficient, but it’s possible to find a very efficient local algorithm if you’re allowed to use three.

At the talk Bernshteyn was attending, the speaker discussed these thresholds for different kinds of problems. One of the thresholds, he realized, sounded a lot like a threshold that existed in the world of descriptive set theory — about the number of colors required to color certain infinite graphs in a measurable way.

To Bernshteyn, it felt like more than a coincidence. It wasn’t just that computer scientists are like librarians too, shelving problems based on how efficiently their algorithms work. It wasn’t just that these problems could also be written in terms of graphs and colorings.

Perhaps, he thought, the two bookshelves had more in common than that. Perhaps the connection between these two fields went much, much deeper.

Perhaps all the books, and their shelves, were identical, just written in different languages — and in need of a translator.

Opening the Door

Bernshteyn set out to make this connection explicit. He wanted to show that every efficient local algorithm can be turned into a Lebesgue-measurable way of coloring an infinite graph (that satisfies some additional important properties). That is, one of computer science’s most important shelves is equivalent to one of set theory’s most important shelves (high up in the hierarchy).

He began with the class of network problems from the computer science lecture, focusing on their overarching rule — that any given node’s algorithm uses information about just its local neighborhood, whether the graph has a thousand nodes or a billion.

To run properly, all the algorithm has to do is label each node in a given neighborhood with a unique number, so that it can log information about nearby nodes and give instructions about them. That’s easy enough to do in a finite graph: Just give every node in the graph a different number.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com