Contradiction proof for inequality of P and NP? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate...
Multiple options vs single option UI
c++ diamond problem - How to call base method only once
What is it called when you ride around on your front wheel?
The art of proof summarizing. Are there known rules, or is it a purely common sense matter?
Are there moral objections to a life motivated purely by money? How to sway a person from this lifestyle?
Retract an already submitted recommendation letter (written for an undergrad student)
Contradiction proof for inequality of P and NP?
A strange hotel
Prove the alternating sum of a decreasing sequence converging to 0 is Cauchy.
Israeli soda type drink
How would I use different systems of magic when they are capable of the same effects?
What do you call the part of a novel that is not dialog?
How do I check if a string is entirely made of the same substring?
What to do with someone that cheated their way through university and a PhD program?
Is it OK if I do not take the receipt in Germany?
Trumpet valves, lengths, and pitch
All ASCII characters with a given bit count
Has a Nobel Peace laureate ever been accused of war crimes?
How to keep bees out of canned beverages?
I preordered a game on my Xbox while on the home screen of my friend's account. Which of us owns the game?
Arriving in Atlanta after US Preclearance in Dublin. Will I go through TSA security in Atlanta to transfer to a connecting flight?
Implementing 3DES algorithm in Java: is my code secure?
Seek and ye shall find
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 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 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 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 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 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 35 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
