|
| ▲ | rogerrogerr 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| (Assuming you mean P==NP) Would it become crackable, or just theoretically crackable? E.g. it's one thing to show it's possible to fly to Mars, it's another thing to actually do it. |
|
| ▲ | localuser13 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not really: * It's possible - very likely even - that even if somehow P=NP, the fastest algorithm for any NP problem turns out to be something like n^1000, which is technically P, but not practical in any way. * The proof may not be constructive, so we may just know that P=NP but it won't help us actually create an algorithm in P (nitpick: technically if P=NP there's a construction to create an algorithm that solves any NP problem in P time, but it's extremely slow - for example it involves iterating over all possible programs). |
|
| ▲ | fwip 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think you read it backwards - that's a possible consequence of P==NP, not P!=NP. |
| |
| ▲ | nine_k 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, I meant the equality. We already operate on the assumption that P ≠ NP, so little would change if that were proved. |
|
|
| ▲ | jannyfer 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Isn’t it the opposite? |
