Uri Even-Chen wrote: > Hi people, > > Recently I checked some problems in mathematics, computer science and > physics. For a long time I had the intuition that the P vs NP Problem > is an undecidable problem. I think the only conclusion we have is > that there is no solution, I don't think P and NP are mathematically > well defined. How so? For any given algorithm, the questions "is the algorithm polinomially bounded" and "is the algorithm non-deterministicly polinomially bounded" can be, fairly easilly, answered. That satisfy the group theory requirement for a "well behaved definition" for both P and NP.
Where is that flaw in the definition? > You can see my proof here: > http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=19 Your terminology seems off. You appear to be using "O(n)" in a way that is inconsistent with the way it is defined in computer science, yet you provide no definition of your own for what it means. This is, of course, unless I totally mis-read your proof. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
