On 10/07/2013 05:28 PM, David Johnston wrote: > We are led to believe that if it is shown that P = NP, we suddenly have a > break for all sorts of algorithms. > So if P really does = NP, we can just assume P = NP and the breaks will make > themselves evident. They do not. Hence P != NP.

As I see it, it's still possible. Proving that a solution exists does not necessarily show you what the solution is or how to find it. And just because a solution is subexponential is no reason a priori to suspect that it's cheaper than some known exponential solution for any useful range of values. So, to me, this is an example of TV getting it wrong. If someone ever proves P=NP, I expect that there will be thunderous excitement in the math community, leaping hopes in the hearts of investors and technologists, and then very careful explanations by the few people who really understand the proof that it doesn't mean we can actually do anything we couldn't do before. Bear _______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list cryptography@metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography