4 ms·
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 remain
by 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 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.
- Chinjut 10y agoAs 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?