3 ms·

P=deterministic algorithms in polynomial time NP=non-deterministic algorithms in polynomial time See, it is a definitionally trivial logical negation. That's

P=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 ago
It'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 ago
  I 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 ago
    I 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 ago
        I mean a cite that Feynman made that joke; where can I find that?
        bashinator 10y ago
        This whole talk is about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3pYRn5j7oI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3pYRn5j7oI
        jsprogrammer 10y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12019310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12019310 I wouldn't consider it authoritative though.
  - Chinjut 10y ago
    As for whether "the physical model of P != NP is definitionally trivial", I suppose it depends on what "the physical model" is, but I don't see any physical reason why it should trivially be impossible to decide the Boolean satisfiability problem in polynomial time... Why shouldn't there be some algorithm to do so?
DanBC 10y ago
> Edit: Also, why cannot I report/flag your post? You can't downvote or flag comments that are replies to you.

Chinjut 10y ago

It'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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
      I mean a cite that Feynman made that joke; where can I find that?
      - bashinator 10y ago
        This whole talk is about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3pYRn5j7oI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3pYRn5j7oI
      - jsprogrammer 10y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12019310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12019310 I wouldn't consider it authoritative though.
- Chinjut 10y ago
  As for whether "the physical model of P != NP is definitionally trivial", I suppose it depends on what "the physical model" is, but I don't see any physical reason why it should trivially be impossible to decide the Boolean satisfiability problem in polynomial time... Why shouldn't there be some algorithm to do so?

DanBC 10y ago

> Edit: Also, why cannot I report/flag your post? You can't downvote or flag comments that are replies to you.