Hi all, I'd like to kill this thread, because not only is it off-topic, but it seems not to be going anywhere remotely insightful or progressive.
Of course a polynomial-time solution to the boolean satisfiability problem could potentially have impact on AGI (though it wouldn't necessarily do so -- this would depend on many things, e.g. the average-case time of the algorithm, the size of the constants in front of the terms of the polynomial, etc.). However, no one has such a solution yet, and no one is putting forth any detailed ideas about such a solution, in this thread. There are lots of scientific breakthroughs that could impact AGI -- for instance, faster semiconductors, nanotech-based computer memories, accelerated Monte Carlo integration routines, whatever -- but they're not really on-topic for the AGI list unless being discussed specifically in the context of their AGI implications. So, I wouldn't say discussions of P=NP are universally verboten for this list; but unless there are specific AGI implications, let's leave that sorta discussion for elsewhere. Luke, I've also had some fun proofs of P=NP, and my best one only lasted about 3 days ... but that is because I thought of it while backpacking ... and it only evaporated after I wrote it down when I got back from the wilds and checked the details ;-) My office-mate in grad school proved P=NP and mailed the proof to 200 professors worldwide. He mailed a retraction 2 days later. I believe he thought he had reduced it to linear programming somehow. Thanks Ben Goertzel List Owner On Jan 20, 2008 1:51 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim, > > I'm sure most people here don't have any difficulty understanding what > you are talking about. You seem to lack solid understanding of these > basic issues however. Please stop this off-topic discussion, I'm sure > you can find somewhere else to discuss computational complexity. Read > a good textbook, if you are sincerely interested in these things. > > > On Jan 20, 2008 9:21 PM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I had no idea what you were talking about until I read > > Matt Mahoney's remarks. I do not understand why people have so much trouble > > reading my messages but it is not entirely my fault. I may have > > misunderstood something that I read, or you may have misinterpreted > > something that I was saying. Or even both! But if you want to continue > > this discussion feel free. > > > > Robin said: As for your problem involving SAT, it's not applicable to P-NP > > because they are classes of decisions problems > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem), which means problems that > > can be answered yes or no. > > > > Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability_problem > > In complexity theory, the Boolean satisfiability problem (SAT) is a decision > > problem, whose instance is a Boolean expression written using only AND, OR, > > NOT, variables, and parentheses. The question is: given the expression, is > > there some assignment of TRUE and FALSE values to the variables that will > > make the entire expression true? > > > > > > > > -- > Vladimir Nesov mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "We are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth." -- Vernor Vinge ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=87929019-bbd33f
