What are your thoughts on showing that P vs NP is undecidable by proving that solving it is equivalent to solve the halting problem using a form of self-referential argument, like Godel did in his incompleteness theorems, or similar paradoxes? Do you think this is a "feasible way" of attacking P vs NP?
Thanks.
Marcos Diez García
Update.
The above question has been discussed in other related posts such as:
- Implications of unprovability of P != NP (https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/10044/implications-of-unprovability-of-p-neq-np)
- Intractability of NP-complete problems as a principle of physics? (https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/1425/intractability-of-np-complete-problems-as-a-principle-of-physics)
An additional reference is Aaronson's article (http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/pnp.pdf), where the formal independence of P vs NP from set theory axiom systems is discussed.
If you found this helpful, please share or recommend to make it more visible for others. Thanks.
0 votes
0 thanks
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Bioinformatics
- Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
More Marcos Diez García's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions