5 ms·
If you imagine it as a logical statement, represented physically in writing: P <=> ~P Then, I think it is clear the statement is not true. NP is trivially defi
by jsprogrammer 10y ago
If you imagine it as a logical statement, represented physically in writing: P <=> ~P
Then, I think it is clear the statement is not true. NP is trivially definitionally not equivalent (equal) to P.
- Chinjut 10y agoNP is most certainly not "trivially definitionally not equivalent (equal) to P". (Do you think everyone puzzling over the question of whether P = NP is a moron? You are aware there is a million dollar prize for a proof one way or the other, yes?). What definition are you using for NP?
- k__ 10y agoI think this was a joke
- jsprogrammer 10y agoYes, we are talking about an anecdote from the book, "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!": Adventures of a Curious Character ? Why would Feynman not have published a full(er) proof?
- Chinjut 10y agoI presume you mean the idea of physical examples in general comes up in "Surely You're Joking"; I can't find any discussion of P vs. NP (or Fermat's Last Theorem, for that matter) within it. As for why Feynman didn't publish a full(er) proof: a full(er) proof of what? He didn't have anything near a proof of P != NP or of Fermat's Last Theorem... There was nothing of the sort to publish.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoP=deterministic algorithms in polynomial time NP=non-deterministic algorithms in polynomial time See, it is a definitionally trivial logical negation. That's the joke! Edit: Also, why cannot I report/flag your post? Your personal malignment is uncalled for.
- Chinjut 10y agoIt's true I did not understand you were joking, but I didn't personally malign you either. If you are referring to the word "moron", I didn't call you a moron; I was shocked that you thought P vs. NP was so trivial, and asked whether you therefore thought everyone puzzling over it was a moron.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoI didn't say you maligned me. You implied others were morons (or, at least that I would think that). You should be directing your disbelief at Feynman's remains. He is the one that made the claim. I just explained the joke. Anyway, it is still true that the physical model of P != NP is definitionally trivial.
- Chinjut 10y agoI didn't malign others, either, as I didn't call anyone a moron... Yes, it's true I implied that you might think that others who puzzled over P vs. NP were morons. I was, after all, laboring under the belief that you thought P vs. NP was trivial. Is that a malignment? Anyway. Nevermind that. Feynman joked that P was trivially not equal to NP? Where can I find that joke given by Feynman?
- jsprogrammer 10y ago>Where can I find that joke given by Feynman? Approximately 6 parents up this comment tree. I'll address your other comment here (HN has an inexplicably bad rate limit): The physical model is the literal characters: P != NP :)
- Chinjut 10y agoI mean a cite that Feynman made that joke; where can I find that?
- 10y ago
- eru 10y agoDo you know what P and NP mean? What's your ~ supposed to mean? (You seem to be implying logical negation. But P is not meant to be a logical statement, thus can't be negated.) Plus what Chinjut said.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago~ is a standard character for logical negation. See my replies elsewhere.
- eru 10y agoOh, my question was more in the vein of "Obviously the standard notation doesn't make sense here. I assume you are not an idiot, so you must have meant something else." Alas, jokes and sarcasm don't travel well over text. One of the reasons they are frowned upon in the HN guidelines.