3 ms·
I'm pretty sure the author is specifically referring to the framing of P vs NP used in the video, not to the problem itself, since a bit into the article they w
by edanm 2y ago
I'm pretty sure the author is specifically referring to the framing of P vs NP used in the video, not to the problem itself, since a bit into the article they write this:
"I think that the framing with inverting a function f is quite underrated."
- vasekrozhon 2y agoYes! We are not trying to claim that P vs NP is underrated in the video, just the bit with interpreting it as a question about inverting functions. I think using "underrated" is justified, I talked with a bunch of people about this topic and it was a new way of looking at it for a lot of them. Of course, using the title "What P vs NP is actually about" is a bit of a stretch -- "Interesting take on P vs NP" would be more honest.
- edanm 2y agoTotally justified, I hadn't thought about that framing of it myself. I think it's just that the first time you use underrated, it seems to be referring to the problem itself, not to your specific take. With the video as context, or even just reading a few sentences in, the meaning is clearer.