[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 6 KB, 251x251, 1278019834277.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1734138 No.1734138 [Reply] [Original]

Sup /sci/.

I was thinking about this earlier, you may know the answer.
Suppose that solutions to a problem can be verified quickly. Then, can the solutions themselves also be computed quickly?

>> No.1734141

i don't think so.

>> No.1734142

Probably Not.

>> No.1734148

Something something P vs. NP

>> No.1734158

>>1734148
No shit, sherlock.

>> No.1734163

No.

>> No.1734166
File: 363 KB, 1698x1719, 1284072385694.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1734166

>>1734163
Then prove it.

>> No.1734173

No, because it doesn't make sense.

>> No.1734177

Some people have said no, but so far no proof has been internationally recognised.

>> No.1734180

No.
Simple example: Find where these functions intersect:

y1 = e^2x + x^2 * log(1/x);
y2 = x'' + cos(x') + sinc(tan(x));

If I give you a the correct value for X you can plug it into the equations and see if you have the same Y very quickly.

Calculating the correct X is a much harder task.

>> No.1734199
File: 65 KB, 682x335, 1282308113334.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1734199

>>1734138
>Suppose that solutions to a problem can be verified quickly. Then, can the solutions themselves also be computed quickly?
taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_and_NP
also:
>The P versus NP problem is a major unsolved problem in computer science.
>major unsolved problem

>> No.1734259

>>1734199
the so called "unsolved problem" was solved a month ago by some indian

>> No.1734266

>>1734199
>The proof has been reviewed publicly by academics,[22] and it was found to contain irreparable conceptual-level errors as well as a number of concrete errors and flaws.[23]

>> No.1734272

>>1734180
> Calculating the correct X is a much harder task.

Prove it.

>> No.1734281

>>1734272
The functions are transcendental. Shit's not easy.

>> No.1734283

>>1734281

Not for me. You just stink at math.