My startling MSN treatise on what NP is, and its implications.
Crobert: Does anyone believe that P = NP?
Peter: Probably less than the number of people who believe in perpetual energy
Crobert:     
 Wtf is a non-deterministic turing machine?
 Wtf is a turing machine?
 It's a gigantic tape ticker right?
Peter: It's a computer that stores data on infinite ticker tape
Crobert:     
 Ok, I kind of know what a turing machine is
 What's a non-deterministic turing machine?
Peter:     
 There's an artistic representation of a turing machine on Wiki
 That wasn't there before     
 Where's this about non-deterministic turing machines?
Crobert: 
 NP stands for non-deterministic polynomial
 I'm just not interested in complexity theory at all
Peter:     
 I am not interested in Star Trek
 ...and I end up reading its Wiki nonetheless
Crobert:     
 Is Star Trek like Gundam?
 Where it works out in theory-
 ...but not in practice?
Peter:     
 No, it doesn't work out in theory either
 Like, warp 10 was supposed to be unachievable asymptotic bound
 Except in one episode they managed to do it in a shuttle
Crobert: Wtf
Peter:     
 They ended up everywhere in the universe at once
 ...and began speed evolving into lizard people
Crobert: Wtf
Peter:     
 Not even kidding
 Okay, so non-deterministic turing machines
 Pick the correct possibility everytime, assuming it exists
Crobert:     
 Hax
 Time travel => P = NP
 You also need to be able to travel time in polynomial time
Peter:     
 Lmao   
 Okay, I get it
 Non-deterministic polynomial time means
 The problem's in polynomial time if you make the right guess
 Everytime
Crobert: That's so lame
Peter: Which means solutions can be verified in polynomial time
Crobert: Well yeah
Peter:     
 So the problems that you can't even verify in polynomial time
 I guess those are fucked forever
Crobert: Yes
Peter: k
Crobert: What is such a problem?
Peter: Chess
Crobert: Source
Peter: # ^ Aviezri Fraenkel and D. Lichtenstein (1981). "Computing a perfect strategy for n×n chess requires time exponential in n". J. Comb. Th. A (31): 199–214.
Crobert: o ok
Peter: k, chess is fucked
Crobert: Is chess solved?
Peter: No, it's fucked.
 
1 comment:
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the most rigourous treatment the mentioned proof has received so far.
Post a Comment