On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:59 AM, John Rose via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > No, there are others that believe P=NP besides Jim I'm sure some of you have > been following Bolotin's argument from last year: > > https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-astounding-link-between-the-p-np-problem-and-the-quantum-nature-of-universe-7ef5eea6fd7a
No because (1) Schrodinger's equation is not NP-complete. It can be solved efficiently on a quantum computer. But a quantum computer does not speed up NP-complete problems. (2) The correct (but impractical) interpretation of Schrodinger's equation is to include the observer in the solution. The solution to the wave equation is the observation of a particle. The solution is exact, and would tell you what particle is observed if you knew the exact initial conditions and could solve the equation efficiently. But since we don't, we use the approximation of an ensemble of all possible conditions where only the state of the observed particle and any entangled particles are fixed. The solution in this case is a probability distribution. -- -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
