someguy12342

5 ms·

1.
by someguy12342 7y ago
That's right! I completely flubbed that part while doing some other edits! Thanks. What I wanted to say is there are O1 and O2 such that: P^O1 strict subset NP^O1 and P^O2 equals NP^O2
2.
by someguy12342 7y ago
I think RJ Lipton (blog author) and Knuth believe it could be true. However, most complexity theorists don't (I think Fortnow does a survey of theorists on this every few years). Knuth says something like "well all it would take i
3.
by someguy12342 7y ago
Maybe this will help with understand the revitalization barrier. Most proof of separations of complexity classes relativize, in that not only do they show A strict subset B they also show A^O strict subset B^O for ANY oracle O. Most of thes
4.
by someguy12342 7y ago
Great post. Here are a few things pointers if you want more information about your points: B) The situation is actually worse than exhausted. We know (have proven) that the regular methods simply won't work (check up "the reletaiv
5.
by someguy12342 7y ago
Sorry, somehow I missed that in the abstract.
6.
by someguy12342 7y ago
No, the distribution is thought to be hard for any classical algorithm (this is still being worked on - there are still ongoing theory development for showing it is harder and harder), and by extension, any classical process. Yes, the prob
7.
by someguy12342 7y ago
It is a bit more difficult to see this because you are describing a continuous time process, however, the answer is that yes you would be able to to figure out the time t1 given you knew had a snapshot of the whole system through the time e