2 ms·

I'm not going to flag this, becuase it's not spam, and it is (at least semi) relevant, but I find this really obnoxious. While appearing to be informative, it'

I'm not going to flag this, becuase it's not spam, and it is (at least semi) relevant, but I find this really obnoxious. While appearing to be informative, it's actually pandering to the "OMG - LOL" crowd and giving them an excuse to say "I don't understand ANY of this!" "Math is hard" says Barbie. Well, yes, math is hard. But if you give me 5 minutes I can explain the problem for real, and its significance. I explained it to my mother, for example, who's 80 and about as non-math as you get get, and then a while later heard her give an accurate explanation to a friend of hers. Understanding the problem isn't rocket science or brain surgery or (pandering to the Sheldons in the audience) string theory from theoretical physics. I've changed my mind. I will flag this.

kaitnieks 16y ago
It is written in a stupid way with lots of words without real content, but I think it actually has a paragraph that explains the problem quite well to "OMG - LOL" crowd: P and NP are both a collection of problems whose solutions are “fast.” The question of P versus NP revolves around whether for all problems that a computer can quickly verify a solution (NP), if it can also quickly find a solution (P). We know that if we have quickly found a solution that we can quickly verify it, so P problems are a subset of NP ones. But the P versus NP problem asks the reverse (sorta): can something be easy to verify, but hard to solve? Are P problems always NP problems? Does P equal NP?