4 ms·
He's just stating that there could be an equivalence class that could get us closer to P=NP and it doesn't have to be computable. The complexity class he mentio
by scottcodie 5y ago
He's just stating that there could be an equivalence class that could get us closer to P=NP and it doesn't have to be computable. The complexity class he mentions is `P^(NP[k])`, 'P With k NP Queries(for constant k)'.
- sova 5y agoRock n roll dude. Suggest that Tiger Woods can get a hole in one every time and people attack you as if you had questioned their fundamental religious beliefs. Ramanujan created an approximating function for pi in 1904 and nobody knows how it works. Packed with factorials to the gills. It's not like the digits of pi are a secret to be computed every time and to try and snag a spare computation cycle here and there -- they are what they are. And finding a pattern comes down not to the self-evident information, but to the method.
- bawolff 5y agoI'm pretty sure you're being downvoted because you're being incoherent, not because of anything you've suggested.
- bawolff 5y agoI have no idea how you could have possibly got that from anything Sova wrote. Nothing they wrote seems to remotely resemble that.
- scottcodie 5y agoI'm just trying to be helpful. :(
- bawolff 5y agoI apologize. I could have (and should have) wrote that comment in a way that was less confrontational.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]