wij
unread,Nov 22, 2022, 12:13:02 PM11/22/22You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Sign in to report message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
I am happy to announce the ℙ≠ℕℙ problem can be succinctly proved.
Executable: Sat <prog>
Definition: The exit status of "Sat <prog>" is 1 iff there exists an instance
<prog> <arg> which runs in P-time and the exit status is 1.
From the definition, Sat computes a ℕℙ problem.
If ℕℙ=ℙ, then, an executable f exists that "Sat f" should run in P-time:
// C source of executable f
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(int, char* []) {
return system("Sat f")? 0:1;
}
Short analysis and explanation:
If Sat(f)==1, from definition of f, f(*)==0. But, from definition of Sat, ∃x,f(x)==1 ... Contradiction
If Sat(f)==0, from definition of f, f(*)==1. But, from definition of Sat, ∀x,f(x)==0 ... Contradiction (see note)
Conclusion: If ℙ=ℕℙ, there exists instances like f that Sat cannot decide.
Therefore, ℙ≠ℕℙ.
note: Exact negation should read: For all <prog> <arg> instance, <prog> <arg>
does not run in P-time or the exit status of <prog> <arg> is not 1.
I am not familiar with complexity theory. Such proof does not look like a
traditional theoretical proof, nonetheless, it is a valid proof. Because the
argument is supported by 'real programs', what can go wrong?