Something I actually believe: That P=NP, and that it’ll be proven by someone finding a simple sublanguage for expressing P problems that admits a simple unification algorithm for instantiating solutions.
-
-
Agreed. Basically I defer to experts, who mostly think P ≠ NP. But I also think it’s an academic question (which is not to say solving it wouldn’t be valuable!) NP is actually pretty “easy” these days in practice, because SAT solvers slice and dice the problems so well.
-
(Practical example: Cargo’s dependency resolver is predicated on the assumption that NP is easy in practice for inputs typical of this workload, and experience bears that out.)
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
My hope would be a proof that P=NP by non-constructive means.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.