Re: Significance of "Relativizations of the P =? NP Question"
- From: Ralph Hartley <hartley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:04:55 -0500
tchow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Ralph Hartley <hartley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:A proof that P!=NP (or that P=NP) would be a very surprising result! We would *expect* such a proof to lead to many other surprising results.
So knowing that a proof of a certain kind that P!=NP would also result in the proof of some particular surprising results doesn't really add much information.
This isn't quite fair.
Perhaps not.
protocols *are* secure. Simultaneously proving that P != NP and that the protocols are *not* secure is somewhat more surprising than proving P != NP only.
I guess I could agree with "somewhat".
Similarly, Razborov-Rudich suggests that it may be more promising to look for a relatively easy non-natural proof of P != NP than to bang one's head against the (most likely difficult) problem of breaking all those cryptographic protocols.
Ah! The *easy* proof of P != NP! I'm all for that!
Ralph Hartley .
- References:
- Significance of "Relativizations of the P =? NP Question"
- From: examachine
- Re: Significance of "Relativizations of the P =? NP Question"
- From: examachine
- Re: Significance of "Relativizations of the P =? NP Question"
- From: tchow
- Re: Significance of "Relativizations of the P =? NP Question"
- From: Ralph Hartley
- Re: Significance of "Relativizations of the P =? NP Question"
- From: tchow
- Significance of "Relativizations of the P =? NP Question"
- Prev by Date: project management: scheduling of tasks
- Next by Date: multiple-string matching & regular expressions
- Previous by thread: Re: Significance of "Relativizations of the P =? NP Question"
- Next by thread: Another clueless wikipedia article
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|