+- Forums - Open Redstone Engineers (https://forum.openredstone.org)
+-- Forum: Off-Topic (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: General computing and engineering (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-66.html)
+--- Thread: P vs NP problem - Opinions? (/thread-2404.html)
RE: P vs NP problem - Opinions? - EDevil - 02-13-2014
(02-13-2014, 03:13 AM)Neogreenyew Wrote: I have no idea what any of this means...
RE: P vs NP problem - Opinions? - mcShadesz - 02-19-2014
Interesting thread.
I lean more to the belief that they are the same (P=NP).
I don't have time to expand much but I will say that a human being can rationalize a solution to each of the examples listed on the wikki, and as such I believe a machine will eventually be able to do the same.
Read: as Neural Network Algorithms progress, I see machines solving complex problems in ways similar to the "human method".
RE: P vs NP problem - Opinions? - greatgamer34 - 02-20-2014
If p=np than n=1.
WHERES MY MONEY?
edit* I thought this thread was for transistors xD.
RE: P vs NP problem - Opinions? - AFtExploision - 02-20-2014
wtf gg. Maybe p=np is one of those unsolvable problems
RE: P vs NP problem - Opinions? - greatgamer34 - 02-20-2014
(02-20-2014, 04:54 AM)AFtExploision Wrote: wtf gg. Maybe p=np is one of those unsolvable problems
But i just solved it 0_o
RE: P vs NP problem - Opinions? - Iceglade - 02-20-2014
That's not an equation like that :p
RE: P vs NP problem - Opinions? - IAmLesbian - 12-29-2019
P=NP divide both sides by P and you get 1=N. Boom solved.
Quick edit: someone else made the joke like 2 replies up lmao
RE: P vs NP problem - Opinions? - Apuly - 12-29-2019
nice bump
RE: P vs NP problem - Opinions? - IAmLesbian - 01-04-2020
(12-29-2019, 09:22 AM)Apuly Wrote: nice bump
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
RE: P vs NP problem - Opinions? - Trecar - 01-08-2020
Bullshit warning: My background isnt really CS
But in Engineering we got the Navier-Stokes equations for fluids. All they do is implement mass conversation, F=m*a and viscosity to describe a fluid. None of those are in any way weird or diffcult concepts. However, the equations are almost never solvable for real-life cases. That does not change the fact they are true. When you actually get a solution, it is exactly what experiments produce. But it is still not possible to understand turbulent flow without emperical stuff. Actually, so many things are empirical (LOOKING AT YOU, MATERIAL SCIENCE). This all suggests to me that P is not NP.
At the same time tho, often times empirical formulas get drafted, well, becuase it works. We could just be lazy. Maybe P IS NP. But for practical purpose, looking at science for the last 300 years, and considering that the advent of computers has only INCREASED the amount of empirical formulas in science (Coz, simulation.), it is safe to say, for all PRACTICAL purposes, P is to be considered NOT NP.
Not to be edgy, but if it is actually not, seriously, why even care anymore?