4 ms·
Proof P!=NP (as one-way functions exist)?
- dmunoz 13y agoNot much to comment on. See Scott Aaronson's "Eight Signs A Claimed P≠NP Proof Is Wrong". [0] [0] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=458 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=458
- gertef 13y agohttp://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304 "Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong" It's not nice to shine the spotlight on someone to subject them to ridicule. This paper should be reviewed by someone with a reputation in the field before being distributed widely.
- yifanlu 13y agoI'm skimming the "simplified" version so forgive me if I'm misinterpreting this. > However, if we could obtain the inverse function in a feasible way ... > The answer would be very simple: First, we start executing y on the program M until 5 minutes and ... > But, this is impossible: we could not reduce the time of 10 centuries to 40 minutes over L due to L is EXP-complete I have VERY minimal knowledge of this, but does this proof go into why this method to "obtain the inverse function in a feasible way" is the ONLY way or that it encompasses EVERY way to do it?