This is worthy of study in my opinion. It's been on my mind for quite awhile.
I wouldn’t be surprised if P = NP because of some property of high-dimensional spaces that goes completely against our intuition.
-
-
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
I think we're going to be surprised which ever direction it goes with what we're going to find out. The discovery will definitely bring insight onto how to look at complexity in ways we haven't thought about.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Maybe with quantum computation or some of its evolutions we get same time, even for completely different complexity. Then P = NP may not matter anymore.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
No. Simply because we wouldn’t want to exist in the universe where that’s true.
-
On the contrary, the universe would be even more amazing if it was true.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Accepting P=NP as not too far fetched, perhaps just takes some large poly time to solve say 3-SAT, wouldn't it be important to provide precise relative complexity bounds, rather than relying on the common but potentially meaningless polytime reductions to establish NP-hardness?
-
Equivalently, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a polytime algorithm for SAT based on some property of high-dimensional spaces that goes completely against our intuition.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
What if P=NP but NP!=P
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
The question is, when do you estimate that we find this property?
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.