5 ms·
NP 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?
by Chinjut 10y ago
NP 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?
- bashinator 10y agoThis whole talk is about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3pYRn5j7oI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3pYRn5j7oI
- jsprogrammer 10y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12019310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12019310 I wouldn't consider it authoritative though.
- DanBC 10y ago> Edit: Also, why cannot I report/flag your post? You can't downvote or flag comments that are replies to you.