3 ms·
sure, agreed, but once you have a proof, you can probably get AI to reduce other problems to that problem in P.
by a2ff6eeb0 2mo ago
sure, agreed, but once you have a proof, you can probably get AI to reduce other problems to that problem in P.
- Jensson 2mo agoWhy wouldn't you be able to do that without a proof? I don't see the value of the proof here, just ask the AI to solve the problem you want and the proof isn't needed.
- a2ff6eeb0 2mo agoFrom my understanding, the two are equivalent; if you can reduce an NP problem to a P problem, you've proven P=NP. The rest is application.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- Scarblac 2mo agoWhy would it not be able to find reductions now, but be able to find them just by being told that P=NP is definitely true?
- Scarblac 2mo agoWell then, just tell the AI that the statement is true and it will find reductions! In reality, it wouldn't depend on the truth value of the statement, but on the AI understanding the proof. If it understands it then it might be able to use it to find reductions. So the point remains, knowing that P=NP isn't what's important, it's the proof that matters.
- a2ff6eeb0 2mo agoSure, we monkeys don't need to care, though.