[ 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: 34 KB, 600x400, 20100816151036-0_0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15471361 No.15471361 [Reply] [Original]

Relative to the P versus NP problem, if it is true that FTL technology can exist (as interpreted relative to quantum mechanics falsifying the EPR paradox via spooky action at a distance), then is it not true that P=NP?

Picture from https://news.mit.edu/2009/explainer-pnp

>> No.15471366

Who the fuck cares? FTL won't be invented (if it ever does) until the 2400s. .1c won't even be achieved until 2100.

>> No.15471370

>>15471361
> P = NP
False. If you were born as a penis human you will never be a non penis human.

>> No.15471379

>>15471361
P=NP is completely unrelated to FTL. Have no idea what you're getting at here

>> No.15471383

>>15471366
>FTL won't be invented until the 2400s
2063 actually

>> No.15471411

>>15471379
Oh sweat summer child the qubits travel backwards in time so the problem is solved in negloglinear [O(-n log n)] time

>> No.15471413

>>15471361
>if it is true that FTL technology can exist
Not in any meaningful manner
Best option is wormhole and that would kill individuals going through and isn't creatable as a portal where desired

>> No.15471417

>>15471413
> that would kill individuals going through
proof?

>> No.15472517

FTL transfer of information does not exist and P does not equal NP

>> No.15472668

>>15471411
>mfw in the future I will be told the answers to problems I didnt ask yet
:O

>> No.15472683

>>15471361
sigh...
UNIVERSAL LIMIT?!?
we have already discovered that nothing can exceed the speed of light, not even dark energy/matter, timey-wimey bullshit

>> No.15472716

Disproof of P = NP.
Assume P = NP. Then, since finding an inconsistency in ZFC is in NP, it is also in P. But assuming ZFC is consistent, there cannot exist such an algorithm. Hence, P =/= NP.

>> No.15473286

>>15472716
but zfc isn t consistent
wasn t this proven like 100 years ago

>> No.15473571

>>15471361
Why do you believe that problems with FTL could be solved with a SAT solver? It could easily be PSPACE-hard.

>> No.15473576

>>15472716
It's P=NP. You convert the CNF into a bipartite graph and show you can use graph parsing algorithms to determine if the CNF is unsatisfiable.

>> No.15473583

>>15471379
You might need an algorithm to stabilize an Alcubierre warp drive or a wormhole, but I would guess it would be at least PSPACE-hard to do so.

>> No.15473621

>>15471411
Negrolinear time

>> No.15475082

>>15471413
>>15471417
The wormhole would be unstable and collapse on you. The issue is could you stabilize it and what would be the computational complexity of wormhole stabilization.

>> No.15476579

>>15471383
Where do you get the 2063 date from?

>> No.15476783

>>15471361
I assume the sets P and NP are only defined in terms of computational solutions. If you use some esoteric quantum approach, I don't think that pertains to the problem

>> No.15476797
File: 882 KB, 500x370, 1607250715032.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15476797

>>15471361
shit thread but why the fuck did you include the source of a picture that anyone can make in MS Paint?

>> No.15476813
File: 66 KB, 500x649, business-commerce-corporate_ladder-interviews-cvs-resumes-name_dropping-ksmn5201_low.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15476813

>>15476797
it was an opportunity for some impressive namedropping

>> No.15476897

>>15476783
Quantum computing would have different computational complexity classes like BQP and QMA.

>> No.15477507

>>15473286
No, ZFC is not known to be inconsistent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory

>> No.15477699

>>15472716
You don't even need P for your bullshit "proof".
>Find inconsistency in ZFC is in NP
>Assume ZFC is consistent
>There cannot be an algorithm in NP that finds an inconsistency.

You assume there is an Algorithm and in the next step you assume something that contradicts your assumption of such an algorithm.
What a load of bullshit.

>> No.15478962

>>15477699
I think he was just joking. It has been speculated that P=NP is independent of ZFC.