The exponential time hypothesis is essentially that NP-complete problems' best solutions are all exponential.

NP-complete problems are essentially those where you need to make some kind of choice over a superlinearly-growing set of options where each option can be solved in polynomial time. Like, for example, finding a route between cities on a map under a certain total distance. You might need to go over all choices of routes.

The ETH essentially assumes that the best solution (in terms of complexity, i.e. how it grows) you can get for these kinds of problems is exponential. OpenAI just proved that this is false, you can have solutions that are below exponential complexity (but still above polynomial - if anyone finds a polynomial solution then we'd have proven that P=NP)

▲

eru 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> NP-complete problems are essentially those where you need to make some kind of choice over a superlinearly-growing set of options where each option can be solved in linear time.

Seems like a weird way to describe NP, and I'm not even sure it's true?

NP is the class of decision problems where if the answer is YES and someone slips you a hint, you can solve them quickly (or quickly figure out that the hint was useless and report that). Where quickly means in polynomial time.

There's nothing about linear time in the classic definition.

▲

pcstl 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Sorry, you're correct. I meant "polynomial" rather than linear.

NP = nondeterministically polynomial. i.e. if you could evaluate all choices in parallel (or just "know" the right choice), then you'd get a polynomial runtime. That's what I was trying to informally hint at, but I ended up using the wrong term. I'll edit my original post.

That's equivalent to your description - the "hint" is knowing which of the options to choose.

The reason why superlinearity comes into play is that if you had a linearly growing amount of solutions to test then you'd just have a sum of polynomials, which is itself polynomial.

	▲	eru 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ok, I read your edited comment. Looks a lot better know. One nitpick: I think your set of options needs to grow a lot faster than just superlinearly, I suspect it needs to grew superpolynomially? However otherwise what you describe is essentially true of all problems in NP, not just the NP hard problems: Sorting is (trivially) in NP, and you can say that to sort you need to pick one out of n! many permutations (which certainly grows superlinearly and even superpolynomially). NP hard problems have the distinction that if you solve one of them efficiently, you can solve all of them efficiently, because you can reduce them to each other. (Basically because NP hard problems allow you to sort-of describe a computer, and reducing them to each other is equivalent to writing an interpreter or compiler.)