8 ms·
> But "we don't know which of the two it is" handwaves away that "answering P vs NP" means precisely coming up with the proof! Of course it's a not a proof of
by alexey-salmin 2y ago
> But "we don't know which of the two it is" handwaves away that "answering P vs NP" means precisely coming up with the proof!
Of course it's a not a proof of "P=NP", but no one is asking for it.
> What the author did describe is a function that we can only evaluate when we already have an answer for P = NP, not a function that computes it.
Yes. This function is still computable though. The question of computability doesn't depend on humans being able to evaluate this function on a given day in history.