/sci/ - Science & Math

>Does P = NP
I hate it when people make threads like this, knowing that obviosly nobody knows. read the inroduction to the Wikipedia page before posting
saging

>>6211823

P does not equal NP. If it did the world would be much more efficient.

>>6211823
>if it did, what difference would it make

None

>>6211850
>If it did the world would be much more efficient

Retarded CS major detected

>>6211823
To answer that question there is some prereqs.

You need to have worked already with Finite, Regular, Context-free, Decidable, and Turing Recognizable languages.

If P and NP were equivalent that would imply that there would always exist an easy computation to a problem that can be easily verified. You would see public key encryption schemes like RSA break down since we could devise an algorithm to factor efficiently. Perhaps, if human brains function like computers (although I don't believe that is true at all) then you may also surmise that if you can easily determine say, "good" music from "bad," then you have the ability to easily make "good" music as well. The latter is probably the more romantic idea of P and NP being equivalent, but there would still be profound consequences even just looking at the classical definition of information and the Turing machines that interpret such information. Personally, I don't believe they are equivalent, but as with anything in logic, a sound and valid proof is needed to be truly certain.

>>6211871
>Retard spouting vague bullshit

Please never post here again

>>6211874

Please, enlighten us with your brilliance.

>>6211823
Yes it does.

The last digit of pi is 3.

The formula for finding any prime number is to take the highest prime number you can think of and think of a higher number with no divisors (besides 1 and itself, of course ;P )

>>6211874
>implying you can explain it any better
Please, remove your fedora before posting

>>6211879
Define easy
Define efficiently

The current super-polynomial/sub-exponential factoring algorithm would be far faster than mapping it to a quartic time 3-SAT solver to break an 1024bit RSA key.

>>6211909
>Define efficiently

Why don't you read the actual Millennium Prize problem?

>>6211913
Retard

>>6211915
Are you having trouble getting through the whole paragraph without your meds?

>>6211919
>Not realizing you're interweaving colloquial and theoretical definitions of efficient
>Thinking an efficient solution will be practical or fast.

gtfo

>>6211909
It was my intention to give a paragraph analyzing the topic, not go through the whole thing. Further, OP asked what the implications are of P and NP being equivalent, not what are the definitions of the complexity classes in question.

>The current super-polynomial/sub-exponential factoring algorithm would be far faster than mapping it to a quartic time 3-SAT solver to break an 1024bit RSA key.

Yes. What's your point?

>>6211931
So you understand the problem better than it's writers, but are above solving it, gotcha.

>>6211934
>Yes. What's your point?

>You would see public key encryption schemes like RSA break down since we could devise an algorithm to factor efficiently

P does not equal NP.
The Riemann hypothesis is true.
The Goldbach conjecture is true.
0.999... does not equal 1.
My red is the same as your red.

/thread

Now stop reposting the same questions over and over again.

>>6211941
>0.999... does not equal 1
1=1
1/3 = 0.333...
3(1/3) = 3(0.333...)
3/3 = 0.999...
1 = 0.999...

>>6211949
Wrong. It's impossible to divide 1 into 3 equal parts.
1/3=
.3333....3,.3333...3,.3333...4

>>6211941
>>6211949
>>6211952

Just when you thought the thread had hit rock bottom

>>6211952
> Wrong. It's impossible to divide 1 into 3 equal parts.
no it's difficult to represent 1 into 3 in decimal notation

>>6211990
this
why are you not using base 30? We've got the first 3 prime numbers

>>6211823
Traveling salesmen would probably get a lot more pussy.

>>6211952
>>6211941