this post was submitted on 12 May 2024
227 points (98.7% liked)

Asklemmy

45807 readers
1663 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 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Reading comprehension is hard my bad.

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