Tim Gowers Proposed and launched a new polymath proposal aimed at a certain approach he has for proving that .
In my opinion the problem P versus NP is not well posed. It is not possible to disregard the nature of the problem: the answer depends whether it has to do only with numeric attributes, as in the case of a bill, or instead it has to do with concepts indicated by substantives, which makes it more difficult to solve and the calculations much harder.
Comment by Guido fiorentino — November 20, 2013 @ 7:53 am
I would like to clarify what I intended in my preceding remark. It is usual to set the problem of Time complexity starting from examples of systems where the problem arises: in my opinion it would be instead more reasonable to start from the basic data of the problem: the purpose of the processing, distinguishing in the first place between concepts an attributes. Therefore the normal arithmetic problems, in which the concepts have no part, and T(N) = O(nk), with k = 1, from the others, where the concepts have instead a fundamental role, and it makes a sense to speak of P and NP, as their difference depends from the different purpose of the concepts involved: the task of the P problems is to detect in systems particular properties indicated by corresponding concepts, while that of the NP problems is instead to find specific systems apt to satisfy them.
Comment by Guido fiorentino — December 9, 2013 @ 3:37 pm
The P/NP problem is related to the Peano’s Axioms system.
Or I say, the P is based on the Peano’s Axioms. But NP not. So P does not equal to NP.
We know that the Peano’s Axioms system is a standard model. When you step into the non-standard model, you will find the truth.
Comment by Bojin Zheng — February 27, 2014 @ 3:30 am
How can I join in this project? Just ask
Comment by hadimaster65555 — April 10, 2014 @ 5:15 pm
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 351 other followers