[HN Gopher] New Proof Settles Decades-Old Bet About Connected Ne...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       New Proof Settles Decades-Old Bet About Connected Networks
        
       Author : rbanffy
       Score  : 55 points
       Date   : 2025-04-20 17:48 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org)
        
       | 3np wrote:
       | Might be fruitful to apply this on p2p mesh networks. I suppose
       | you should be able to make a model describing how the
       | relationship between the fraction of byzantine nodes affects the
       | probability distribution of connectedness. Then you could figure
       | out what algorithm parameters would put you within desired bounds
       | for tolerated ratios of byzantine.
        
         | hinkley wrote:
         | Byzantine has I think been misused. It's the least number of
         | good members you need to be successful, not the _best_ number.
         | I think there's a reason parliamentary systems have a
         | supermajority rule for making certain kinds of changes and a
         | simple majority for others and we should probably be doing the
         | same when we model systems.
         | 
         | It is simple enough for an adversarial system to subvert some
         | members via collusion and others via obstruction. Take
         | something like Consul which can elect new members and remove
         | old ones (often necessary in modern cloud architectures). What
         | does 50.1% mean when the divisor can be changed?
         | 
         | And meshes are extremely weird because the whole point is to
         | connect nodes that cannot mutually see each other. It is quite
         | difficult to know for sure if you're hallucinating the
         | existence of a node two hops away from yourself. You've never
         | seen each other, except maybe when the weather was just right
         | one day months ago.
        
       | juancroldan wrote:
       | The article reads as written by someone who just learned about
       | graphs, it focuses so much on the bet and so less on explaining
       | Ramanujan expanders
        
         | krnsll wrote:
         | Not sure I agree.
         | 
         | It does a decent job of conveying the essential idea for a
         | broader readership: perturb a graph through its adjacency
         | matrix just enough to make the universality conjecture hold for
         | the distribution of eigenvalues -> analytically establish that
         | the perturbation was so small that the result would carry back
         | to the original adjacency matrix (I imagine this is an
         | analytical estimate bounding the distance between distributions
         | in terms of the perturbation) -> use the determined
         | distribution to study the probability of the second eigenvalue
         | being concentrated around the Alon-Bopanna number.
         | 
         | I haven't had a chance to read the paper and don't work in
         | graph theory but close enough to have enjoyed the article.
        
           | michelpp wrote:
           | I agree with you, I work with graph algebra libraries and
           | this article did a very nice job.
        
       | franktankbank wrote:
       | Coming to a leetcode interview soon near you!
        
         | rvz wrote:
         | Asking a candidate to solve proofs for a typical SWE interview
         | in 2025 tells you that they don't know how to hire and likely
         | google'd the answers before the interview themselves.
         | 
         | Unless you are a research scientist at an AI research company
         | or top hedge fund, the interviewer should be best prepared to
         | answer why they _really_ need someone to know these proofs in
         | their actual job.
        
       | jlrubin wrote:
       | > The fraction turned out to be approximately 69%, making the
       | graphs neither common nor rare.
       | 
       | The wording kinda bothers me... Either 31% or 69% is exceedingly
       | common.
       | 
       | Rare would be asymptotically few, or constant but smaller than
       | e.g. 1 in 2^256.
       | 
       | I guess the article covers it's working definition of common,
       | ever so briefly:
       | 
       | > that if you randomly select a graph from a large bucket of
       | possibilities, you can practically guarantee it to be an optimal
       | expander.
       | 
       | So it's not a reliable property, either way.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-04-20 23:00 UTC)