4 ms·
Check his comment to a poster that asked the same thing (why would P != NP change anything): P≠NP is exactly the ‘expected’ answer! But proving that ex
by j-g-faustus 16y ago
Check his comment to a poster that asked the same thing (why would P != NP change anything):
P≠NP is exactly the ‘expected’ answer! But proving that
expected answer has been the central goal of the field
for 40 years—not so much (in my opinion) because the
answer itself is in serious doubt, as because of how much
will need to be learned about computation on the way to
the proof. If P≠NP is proved, then to whatever extent
theoretical computer science continues to exist at all,
it will have a very different character.
- tocomment 16y agoI still don't get it. I asked on his blog.
- tocomment 16y agoNo one explains it on the blog either. They all think I'm asking about P=NP. Oh well, maybe this guy's life will change if P!=NP is proven, but the rest of us will carry on normally.
- icey 16y agoI'm glad you asked, I couldn't figure it out either. I could see P = NP being a big deal, but I thought we'd all been kind of assuming P != NP
- sidww2 16y agoP!=NP is a big deal in computational complexity as 1) It would solve one of the most important problems in computer science and mathematics 2) Understanding of the proof and the methods it uses could very likely lead to solving other problems in computational complexity. 3) Furthermore, the proof would shed light on why certain problems are hard. Such an understanding could lead to better heuristics to solve those problems.
- tocomment 16y ago@sidww2: Thanks that explains it pretty well. I guess we don't really know why hard problems are hard right now. That sounds important to figure out. BTW, why can't I respond to sidww2's comment? There's no reply button.
- DougBTX 16y agoIt's the anti-flamewar feature. The deeper the thread, the longer it takes for the reply button to appear.