this post was submitted on 12 May 2024
231 points (99.1% liked)

Asklemmy

43989 readers
685 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Most people would probably intuitively answer "no", and most computer scientists agree, but this has still not been proven, so we actually don't know.

I disagree, I think most computer scientists believe that P != NP, at least when it comes to classical computers. If we believed that P = NP, then why would we bother with encryption?

EDIT: nvm, I misread it.

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I think you've misunderstood ๐Ÿ˜…. Answering "no" to that question corresponds to P != NP (there are problems that are easy to verify but not easy to solve), while "yes" means P = NP (if a solution is easy to check, the problem must be easy to solve). So I am saying most people and most scientists believe P != NP exactly as you say.

[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Reading comprehension is hard my bad.

Edit: wait no, it's "easy" I'm just dumb.