P vs NP problem - Opinions?

[Iceglade]

LETS GET $1,000,000 GAIS WHEEEEEEE~~~

No, but seriously on topic. Being a community of well-spoken computer engineers we most likely have opinions on this problem. Contraversial, Millenium Prize problem... what's not to love? Discuss your opinions on whether P = NP below. Personally, I think they are differerent, which seems to be the common belief.

-----------------------------

BRIEF RUNDOWN of the problem if you don't know:

Saying that P = NP basically means that anything you can check in some amount of time, you can calculate in that amount of time. The most common example of this is multiplication and factoring. Multiplication is astonishingly easy to do, and no matter how large your numbers get it is still relatively elementary and basic. Multiplying 787456*324569 is relatively simple. However, factoring either of those numbers is a tedious and unattractive task. The P vs. NP problem basically asks the question "Are they fundamentally different, or are we just not smart enough?

If you're still curious, check out this article @ http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP for an in-depth yet understandable description of the problem. Enjoy!

[AFtExploision]

Error: P and NP undefined

[Iceglade]

Error: P and NP undefined

Apologies, I assumed everybody had a background in the problem

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP is an amazing introductory read, and who knows? You might just get a million dollars!

[AFtExploision]

I know what it is. I am saying that you can not assign the variable P to the value of the variable NP because they are undefined

[Iceglade]

It's not supposed to be an equation, just a relationship

[Treesin]

I agree with you.

I think that it would just be too "easy" if P = NP. After all, there really isn't a good reason that this should be the case.

[AFtExploision]

To be different, I am going with P = NP. No way to back it up. LOOKS LIKE I AM A REGULAR FERMET

[Iceglade]

Of course, you can agree that if P = NP, it would be easier to prove as you need to only prove an NP-complete problem. But I still agree that it most likely is not equal.

[Neogreenyew]

I have no idea what any of this means...

[Darkroom]

Its much more likely that p doesn't equal np just because of the difficulty of proving each case. Probability isn't in P=NP's favor. That being said we have solved many P=NP problems!

[EDevil]

I have no idea what any of this means...

[mcShadesz]

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".

[greatgamer34]

If p=np than n=1.
WHERES MY MONEY?
edit* I thought this thread was for transistors xD.

[AFtExploision]

wtf gg. Maybe p=np is one of those unsolvable problems

[greatgamer34]

wtf gg. Maybe p=np is one of those unsolvable problems

But i just solved it 0_o

[Iceglade]

That's not an equation like that :p

[IAmLesbian]

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

[Apuly]

nice bump

[IAmLesbian]

nice bump

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Trecar]

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?

[Iceglade]

This is kinda the worst post i ever made sorry guys " Being a community of well-spoken computer engineers we most likely have opinions on this problem " kill me

[Trecar]

will do, gib home adress pls

[PabloDons]

hey, we all gotta bring food to the table somehow