Re: Could P = NP be true?
- From: tchow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 19 Dec 2009 03:50:45 GMT
In article <2989ba22-9721-4cfd-82de-30dd4dd2ff64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
RussellE <reasterly@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
this simple algorithm proves P=NP for
any fixed number of variables.
And that answer is not even wrong.
--
Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu
The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will
never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from
the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Could P = NP be true?
- From: RussellE
- Re: Could P = NP be true?
- References:
- Could P = NP be true?
- From: cplxphil
- Re: Could P = NP be true?
- From: RussellE
- Re: Could P = NP be true?
- From: tchow
- Re: Could P = NP be true?
- From: RussellE
- Could P = NP be true?
- Prev by Date: Re: Could P = NP be true?
- Next by Date: Re: Could P = NP be true?
- Previous by thread: Re: Could P = NP be true?
- Next by thread: Re: Could P = NP be true?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|