Live data from Hacker News

P vs. NP and the Computational Complexity Zoo (2014) [video]

youtube.com

21–30 of 60 posts

Re: P vs. NP and the Computational Complexity Zoo (2014) [video]

#21
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically I have to find a problem that categories as P but not NP!? Kinda like the Planck constant in quantum theory. f(2) = 4, f(3) = ? /brainstorming

Well no, every problem in P is in NP trivially. To prove P = NP, you would have to prove that one of the many NP-Complete problems has a polytime algorithm. Well that's not the only way to prove P = NP, but that's one approach.

To prove that P does not equal NP you would have to prove that a problem thought to be NP Complete was in fact NP Intermediate. That is, the problem meets the conditions of NP, but NP Complete problems cannot be reduced to it.

Re: P vs. NP and the Computational Complexity Zoo (2014) [video]

#22
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NP = Set of problems for which candidate solutions can be checked for correctness in polynomial time in the length of the input. P = Set of problems for which we can find a solution in polynomial time in the length of the input. Clearly, P \subseteq NP. Proving P = NP would require proving NP \subseteq P, something which most people would believe to be a) highly unlikely b) difficult.

So basically I have to find a problem that categories as P but not NP!? Kinda like the Planck constant in quantum theory. f(2) = 4, f(3) = ? /brainstorming

[deleted]

Re: P vs. NP and the Computational Complexity Zoo (2014) [video]

#23
post #4

That video helped a lot, but I'm still struggling to understand what the N=NP question means and how to prove it. I think that all problems with a set definition for "solved" is solvable as in "P". For example, the rubik's cube is solved if all sides have a solid color. And is thus a "P".

what we are concerned with here are two things, that becomes easier to explain as three things:

    * the problem's class
    * the algorithm.. or proof
    * the size of the input
* the problem's class:

each problem has a corresponding class(i) determined by a universal set of rules based on current solving algorithms and how they react to different input

in a beautiful and approachable paper by richard karp titled: reducibility among combinatorial problems(ii); karp showed that the hardest problems, that seem unable to be solved in polynomial or subpolynomial time, called NP-Hard, are basically all the same problem viewed from different perspectives

karp develops reducibility, a process used to show that one can reduce any of his 21 chosen problems into any of the others through a specific tree of transformations he calls reductions

this set of problems that form the tree of reductions is called NP-Complete

i say it is approachable because this paper develops reducibility and as such lacks any assumption about the reader's previous knowledge

.

* the algorithm:

check out this chart(iii) that lists some time complexities, you will see polynomial,P, time about mid way through

polynomial time is 2^O(log n) or poly(n), that 'O()' syntax is something called big O, which is analogous to a sort of algorithmic measurement unit(iv) derived from number of necessary operations in relation to the size of the input

all algorithms before the polynomial time listing are sub polynomial time for any inputs and as such are classified as P

.

* the size of the input:

lots of np problems have algorithm solutions that can solve specific inputs in polynomial time

sometimes those inputs are small, or follow a specific pattern, but a general purpose algorithm, or a collection of specific algorithms that can be proved to cover all possible inputs, that runs in a reduced(v) complexity of polynomial or sub polynomial time is necessary to be classified P

one way to prove P=NP is to take one of karp's problems and develop an algorithm that satisfies the above stated requirements

once developed karp's reductions can be used on the algorithm to show that all NP-Complete problems are in P as well, therefore P=NP

.

(i) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_class

(ii) http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~luca/cs172/karp.pdf

(iii) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_complexity#Table_of_common...

(iv) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation

(v) https://justin.abrah.ms/computer-science/big-o-notation-expl...

Re: P vs. NP and the Computational Complexity Zoo (2014) [video]

#24

I definitely got a sense of mathematical awe out of that. Thanks for sharing. I'm always impressed when I see someone who can communicate ideas, especially complex scientific concepts, clearly and effectively, using analogies in a proper way that doesn't just overwhelm the viewer (as a lot of popsci stuff does). It's a talent I know that I need to work on; as a fledgling academic attempting to write papers clearly I…

As with writing in general, here's how I personally approach it:

1. Practice, practice, practice.

2. Find good examples (like this video) and try to extract and generalize the techniques that you think work really well.

and the last point which not everyone thinks of consciously:

3. Watch sports, read books, watch TV and movies, read the news, and go outside. When you must communicate by analogy, you need a broad pool of experiences to draw from so that you can match your audience.

Re: P vs. NP and the Computational Complexity Zoo (2014) [video]

#26

Remember quantum computing ? a lot of NP problems will become P

No, they'll become a part of BQP (or rather are already).

P is defined as the class of problems decidable in polynomial time on a classical Turing machine.

P doesn't change with the advent of quantum computers.

Also it is suspected that BQP \not \subset NP, i.e. there are problems in BQP that might not be in NP.

Re: P vs. NP and the Computational Complexity Zoo (2014) [video]

#27
post #4

That video helped a lot, but I'm still struggling to understand what the N=NP question means and how to prove it. I think that all problems with a set definition for "solved" is solvable as in "P". For example, the rubik's cube is solved if all sides have a solid color. And is thus a "P".

My simplistic take away is it's an answer to this question about algorithms.

For a problem you can have a number of different algorithms to solve the problem. And a number of algorithms to check the solution to a problem. This is a point that is skipped over and trips lay people up because in school people are usually taught _the algorithm_ for solving a problem. But there are all sorts of ways to skin the cat mathematically. Some of these algorithms are great and some are 'bad'

Polynomial time algorithms are good. Ones that blow up exponentially are bad.

The question is, if you find a good polynomial time checking algorithm for a problem, does that mean there are polynomial time solving algorithms for that problem? Or not.

Re: P vs. NP and the Computational Complexity Zoo (2014) [video]

#28
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well no, every problem in P is in NP trivially. To prove P = NP, you would have to prove that one of the many NP-Complete problems has a polytime algorithm. Well that's not the only way to prove P = NP, but that's one approach.

To prove that P does not equal NP you would have to prove that a problem thought to be NP Complete was in fact NP Intermediate. That is, the problem meets the conditions of NP, but NP Complete problems cannot be reduced to it.

No, not really.

There are many NP-Complete problems, and there are many NP problems that are thought to be neither NPC nor in P.

In fact, if P != NP, there are infinitely many such problems.

So proving P != NP could proceed by finding some problem in NP that is not also in P.

Re: P vs. NP and the Computational Complexity Zoo (2014) [video]

#29
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To prove that P does not equal NP you would have to prove that a problem thought to be NP Complete was in fact NP Intermediate. That is, the problem meets the conditions of NP, but NP Complete problems cannot be reduced to it.

No, not really. There are many NP-Complete problems, and there are many NP problems that are thought to be neither NPC nor in P. In fact, if P != NP, there are infinitely many such problems. So proving P != NP could proceed by finding some problem in NP that is not also in P.

Which problem do you think is NP but is not NP Complete?

Re: P vs. NP and the Computational Complexity Zoo (2014) [video]

#30
post #27
post #4

That video helped a lot, but I'm still struggling to understand what the N=NP question means and how to prove it. I think that all problems with a set definition for "solved" is solvable as in "P". For example, the rubik's cube is solved if all sides have a solid color. And is thus a "P".

My simplistic take away is it's an answer to this question about algorithms. For a problem you can have a number of different algorithms to solve the problem. And a number of algorithms to check the solution to a problem. This is a point that is skipped over and trips lay people up because in school people are usually taught _the algorithm_ for solving a problem. But there are all sorts of ways to skin the cat mathem…

Just wanted to add, out of my butt I think the point not explicitly stated is, if you can prove P=NP then I think it means that you can also mechanically transform polynomial checking algorithms into polynomial time solving algorithms.
Post reply on HN