Re: obvious ("dumb") question about oracles and P vs. NP
- From: cplxphil@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
Wait, one more thing.
If it's possible to say that X^A != X^B --> A != B, why doesn't
someone do this to prove P != NP....
Consider some complexity class X, maybe P. Let Q be the oracle from
Baker-Gill-Solovay's proof s.t. P^Q != NP^Q. Then let A equal the
union of every oracle for every language in P, unioned with Q, and let
B be the union of every oracle for every language in NP, also unioned
with Q. The effect is...
A = (U (oracle for x) x is an element of P) U oracle for Q
B = (U (oracle for x) y is an element of NP) U oracle for Q.
Then consider X^A and X^B. Then since the complexity class X has
access to an oracle for all languages in P plus an oracle for Q, X^A
should be something comparable to the language from Baker-Gill-
Solovay, except probably with a few extra languages thrown in, since
the Q oracle could be applied at any time. The other language should
be different from this one.
That's obviously far from a real proof...but I guess what I'm asking
is, is there some reason why that approach couldn't work?
-Phil
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- obvious ("dumb") question about oracles and P vs. NP
- From: cplxphil
- Re: obvious ("dumb") question about oracles and P vs. NP
- From: tchow
- Re: obvious ("dumb") question about oracles and P vs. NP
- From: cplxphil
- Re: obvious ("dumb") question about oracles and P vs. NP
- From: tchow
- Re: obvious ("dumb") question about oracles and P vs. NP
- From: cplxphil
- obvious ("dumb") question about oracles and P vs. NP
- Prev by Date: Re: obvious ("dumb") question about oracles and P vs. NP
- Next by Date: Re: Hash/permutation function for object ID creation
- Previous by thread: Re: obvious ("dumb") question about oracles and P vs. NP
- Next by thread: Re: obvious ("dumb") question about oracles and P vs. NP
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|