[ 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: 286 KB, 1600x1200, p np.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6536977 No.6536977[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Well?

>> No.6536982
File: 239 KB, 421x433, 1400113641270.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6536982

>> No.6536983

nobody knows, and anyone who claims they do is full of shit. making claims in math without solid proof is against everything math stands for.

so, if nobody here has proof, it's all opinions and conjecture.

>> No.6536985

>>6536977
Easier to assume it doesnt.

>> No.6536988

>>6536985
>assume
That's not math :^)

>> No.6536989

>>6536977
Intuitively I think that P doesn't equal NP, because that would be too easy.
But who knows, I'm not a mathematician.

>> No.6536990

>>6536988
Neither are you!

>> No.6536992

>tfw you will never reject a millennium prize award

>> No.6536996

>>6536977
P=NP
P/P=N
N=1

>> No.6537006

>>6536996

Q.E.D.

>> No.6537017

no1 knows

>> No.6537103

>>6536996
This made me laugh more than it should.

>> No.6537126

>>6536977
NL=P and NP=AP, clearly NL=/=AP

>> No.6537131
File: 42 KB, 1105x495, it is a mystery.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6537131

>>6536977

>> No.6537134

If P is indeed /= NP, how useful would a proof be except for maybe do everyone a favor and eliminate a fruitless endeavor altogether?

>> No.6537141

>>6537134
Maybe nothing direct, but the process of finding that proof would generate a lot of lemmas that have other useful applications.

>> No.6537142

Perhaps we should try a proof of its unproveability instead.

>> No.6538654

Because one of those P's is a Rho.

>> No.6538672

N = 1

>> No.6538753

>>6536996
>not considering P=0

>> No.6538846
File: 25 KB, 281x291, 57986512.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6538846

each DTIME algorithm has a P counterpart, and a NP counterpart, and so on.
the category of DTIME polynomials has a functor to each category of higher complexity class.
the arrows in these categories are functions between return values of the algorithms.
it can be proven that there exists a bijection between the P category and the NEXPTIME category, and a bijection from the NEXPTIME category to the NP category. thus for each algorithm in NP, there is a NEXPTIME algorithm that i don't actually know anything about mathematics.
therefore P is equivalent to NP.

>> No.6538866

>>6538672
>N = 1
eke

>> No.6538901

>>6537134
We presently know very little about the complexity of problems. Real insight in this, as provided by a proof that P!=NP, would be an astounding breakthrough.

>> No.6538928

>>6538672
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem