Contradiction proof for inequality of P and NP? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate...
What to do with someone that cheated their way through university and a PhD program?
Multiple options vs single option UI
What is the ongoing value of the Kanban board to the developers as opposed to management
"My boss was furious with me and I have been fired" vs. "My boss was furious with me and I was fired"
My bank got bought out, am I now going to have to start filing tax returns in a different state?
How would I use different systems of magic when they are capable of the same effects?
Additive group of local rings
What do you call the part of a novel that is not dialog?
Passing args from the bash script to the function in the script
Can I criticise the more senior developers around me for not writing clean code?
A Dictionary or Encyclopedia of Fantasy or Fairy Tales from the 1960s
Contradiction proof for inequality of P and NP?
As an international instructor, should I openly talk about my accent?
Map material from china not allowed to leave the country
Is accepting an invalid credit card number a security issue?
What is it called when you ride around on your front wheel?
Can you stand up from being prone using Skirmisher outside of your turn?
Does Mathematica have an implementation of the Poisson binomial distribution?
Co-worker works way more than he should
Multiple fireplaces in an apartment building?
Are there moral objections to a life motivated purely by money? How to sway a person from this lifestyle?
Is a 5 watt UHF/VHF handheld considered QRP?
"Whatever a Russian does, they end up making the Kalashnikov gun"? Are there any similar proverbs in English?
What's parked in Mil Moscow helicopter plant?
Contradiction proof for inequality of P and NP?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Proof for P-complete is not closed under intersectionProof of sum of powerset?Contradiction between best-case running time of insertion sort and $nlog n$ lower bound?bounded length CoNP proofLogarithmic Randomness is Necessary for PCP TheoremTrouble seeing the contradiction in diagonalization proofIs it always possible to have one part of the reduction?Is this language NP Hard?Testing algorithm for a modified sieve of EratosthenesFinding a complexity by solving inequality
$begingroup$
I'm trying to argue that N is not equal NP using hierarchy theorems. This is my argument, but when I showed it to our teacher and after deduction, he said that this is problematic where I can't find a compelling reason to accept.
We start off by assuming that $P=NP$. Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$. As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$. On the contrary, the time hierarchy theorem states that there should be a language $A in TIME(n^{k+1})$, that's not in $TIME(n^k)$. This would lead us to conclude that $A$ is in $P$, while not in $NP$, which is a contradiction to our first assumption. So, we came to the conclusion that $P neq NP$.
Is there something wrong with my proof? I was struggling for hours before asking this, though!
complexity-theory time-complexity
asked 1 hour ago
inverted_indexinverted_index
1384
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm trying to argue that N is not equal NP using hierarchy theorems. This is my argument, but when I showed it to our teacher and after deduction, he said that this is problematic where I can't find a compelling reason to accept.
We start off by assuming that $P=NP$. Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$. As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$. On the contrary, the time hierarchy theorem states that there should be a language $A in TIME(n^{k+1})$, that's not in $TIME(n^k)$. This would lead us to conclude that $A$ is in $P$, while not in $NP$, which is a contradiction to our first assumption. So, we came to the conclusion that $P neq NP$.
Is there something wrong with my proof? I was struggling for hours before asking this, though!
complexity-theory time-complexity
asked 1 hour ago
inverted_indexinverted_index
1384
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm trying to argue that N is not equal NP using hierarchy theorems. This is my argument, but when I showed it to our teacher and after deduction, he said that this is problematic where I can't find a compelling reason to accept.
We start off by assuming that $P=NP$. Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$. As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$. On the contrary, the time hierarchy theorem states that there should be a language $A in TIME(n^{k+1})$, that's not in $TIME(n^k)$. This would lead us to conclude that $A$ is in $P$, while not in $NP$, which is a contradiction to our first assumption. So, we came to the conclusion that $P neq NP$.
Is there something wrong with my proof? I was struggling for hours before asking this, though!
complexity-theory time-complexity
asked 1 hour ago
inverted_indexinverted_index
1384
$endgroup$
I'm trying to argue that N is not equal NP using hierarchy theorems. This is my argument, but when I showed it to our teacher and after deduction, he said that this is problematic where I can't find a compelling reason to accept.
We start off by assuming that $P=NP$. Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$. As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$. On the contrary, the time hierarchy theorem states that there should be a language $A in TIME(n^{k+1})$, that's not in $TIME(n^k)$. This would lead us to conclude that $A$ is in $P$, while not in $NP$, which is a contradiction to our first assumption. So, we came to the conclusion that $P neq NP$.
Is there something wrong with my proof? I was struggling for hours before asking this, though!
complexity-theory time-complexity
complexity-theory time-complexity
asked 1 hour ago
inverted_indexinverted_index
1384
asked 1 hour ago
inverted_indexinverted_index
1384
asked 1 hour ago
inverted_indexinverted_index
1384
asked 1 hour ago
inverted_indexinverted_index
1384
asked 1 hour ago
inverted_indexinverted_index
1384
1384
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$.
Sure.
As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$.
No. Polynomial time reductions aren't free. We can say it takes $O(n^{r(L)})$ time to reduce language $L$ to $SAT$, where $r(L)$ is the exponent in the polynomial time reduction used. This is where your argument falls apart. There is no finite $k$ such that for all $L in NP$ we have $r(L) < k$. At least this does not follow from $P = NP$ and would be a much stronger statement.
And this stronger statement does indeed conflict with the time hierarchy theorem, which tells us that $P$ can not collapse into $TIME(n^k)$, let alone all of $NP$.
answered 1 hour ago
orlporlp
6,1251826
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "419"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f108496%2fcontradiction-proof-for-inequality-of-p-and-np%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$.
Sure.
As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$.
No. Polynomial time reductions aren't free. We can say it takes $O(n^{r(L)})$ time to reduce language $L$ to $SAT$, where $r(L)$ is the exponent in the polynomial time reduction used. This is where your argument falls apart. There is no finite $k$ such that for all $L in NP$ we have $r(L) < k$. At least this does not follow from $P = NP$ and would be a much stronger statement.
And this stronger statement does indeed conflict with the time hierarchy theorem, which tells us that $P$ can not collapse into $TIME(n^k)$, let alone all of $NP$.
answered 1 hour ago
orlporlp
6,1251826
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$.
Sure.
As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$.
No. Polynomial time reductions aren't free. We can say it takes $O(n^{r(L)})$ time to reduce language $L$ to $SAT$, where $r(L)$ is the exponent in the polynomial time reduction used. This is where your argument falls apart. There is no finite $k$ such that for all $L in NP$ we have $r(L) < k$. At least this does not follow from $P = NP$ and would be a much stronger statement.
And this stronger statement does indeed conflict with the time hierarchy theorem, which tells us that $P$ can not collapse into $TIME(n^k)$, let alone all of $NP$.
answered 1 hour ago
orlporlp
6,1251826
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$.
Sure.
As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$.
No. Polynomial time reductions aren't free. We can say it takes $O(n^{r(L)})$ time to reduce language $L$ to $SAT$, where $r(L)$ is the exponent in the polynomial time reduction used. This is where your argument falls apart. There is no finite $k$ such that for all $L in NP$ we have $r(L) < k$. At least this does not follow from $P = NP$ and would be a much stronger statement.
And this stronger statement does indeed conflict with the time hierarchy theorem, which tells us that $P$ can not collapse into $TIME(n^k)$, let alone all of $NP$.
answered 1 hour ago
orlporlp
6,1251826
$endgroup$
Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$.
Sure.
As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$.
No. Polynomial time reductions aren't free. We can say it takes $O(n^{r(L)})$ time to reduce language $L$ to $SAT$, where $r(L)$ is the exponent in the polynomial time reduction used. This is where your argument falls apart. There is no finite $k$ such that for all $L in NP$ we have $r(L) < k$. At least this does not follow from $P = NP$ and would be a much stronger statement.
And this stronger statement does indeed conflict with the time hierarchy theorem, which tells us that $P$ can not collapse into $TIME(n^k)$, let alone all of $NP$.
answered 1 hour ago
orlporlp
6,1251826
edited 7 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
orlporlp
6,1251826
answered 1 hour ago
orlporlp
6,1251826
answered 1 hour ago
orlporlp
6,1251826
6,1251826
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Computer Science Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f108496%2fcontradiction-proof-for-inequality-of-p-and-np%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
