Shtetl-Optimized » Blog Archive » Reasons to believe
More often than I can remember, I’ve been asked some form of the following question: “If you computer scientists can’t prove P=NP or P!=NP, then why aren’t we justified in b…
More often than I can remember, I’ve been asked some form of the following question: “If you computer scientists can’t prove P=NP or P!=NP, then why aren’t we justified in believing whichever one we want? And why is the ‘consensus’ that P!=NP anything more than a shared prejudice — something you repeat to each other so your work won’t seem irrelevant?” It’s time to assume the mantle of Defender of the Faith. I’m going to give you ten arguments for believing P!=NP: arguments that are pretty much obvious to those who have thought seriously about the question, but that (with few exceptions)…
saved by
related reading
- P vs. NP for Dummiesscottaaronson.blog
- I believe P=NPemanueleviola.wordpress.com
- P versus NP problem - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
- pnp.pdfscottaaronson.com
- Shtetl-Optimized >> Blog Archive >> Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrongscottaaronson.blog
- Complexity Theory’s 50-Year Journey to the Limits of Knowledge | Quanta Magazinequantamagazine.org
- Computational Complexityblog.computationalcomplexity.org
- P vs NP and its application to zero knowledge proofs | RareSkillsrareskills.io
- What P vs NP is actually about – Vasek Rozhon's blogvasekrozhon.wordpress.com
- Computational Complexity Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)plato.stanford.edu
- NP-completeness - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
- aaronson-philosophy.pdfcs.princeton.edu