3 ms·
> A simple implementation that solves any of the NP problems in polynomial time is a much better proof than any article. That completely misses the point of P
by quchen 13y ago
> A simple implementation that solves any of the NP problems in polynomial time is a much better proof than any article.
That completely misses the point of P vs. NP, which is not about programmability but a problem entirely of theoretical nature (and interest).
- O(n^<Graham's number>) is in P. (If you can solve TSM in that time, you've proven P = NP.)
- Cracking AES-256 is even easier than P: it's O(1).
- raverbashing 13y ago> "That completely misses the point of P vs. NP, which is not about programmability but a problem entirely of theoretical nature" Yes, there is an important theoretical background, but IF you prove P==NP you should go for it (of course you can have n^a big number but that's unlikely) > Cracking AES-256 is even easier than P: it's O(1) Well, you can take any fixed size subset and say it's O(1), TSP for 100 cities is O(1) as well But if the 'theoretical work' is merely to win grants and ensure tenure yeah, just don't bother.