Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
dnautics | on: The Exponential Time Hypothesis Is False [pdf]
the language around complexity domains is really confusing.

P means "this problem can be solved in polynomial # of steps relative to the problem size"

NP means "we don't know if the problem can be solved in polynomial # of steps relative to problem size, but we know we can check if the result is correct in a polynomial # of steps relative to the problem size"

!ETH: it was widely suspected that the flagship problem in NP, 3SAT, requires an exponential # of steps relative to problem size. We now know that 3SAT requires AT MOST something more than polynomial but strictly less than exponential to solve.

"P = NP" means "if you can check it in polynomial time, there's some way to solve it in polynomial time". "P != NP" means "there are some problems checkable in polynomial time for which there is no polynomial way to obtain the result"

Today's new proof makes "P = NP" "feel more likely", because we know that the flagship problem in NP is not exponential.

tfpgh | parent | next
This isn't quite true, problems in NP can still require exponential time to solve.

Solving an arbitrary NP problem looks like first reducing that problem to SAT and then solving the equivalent SAT problem. We know (via the Cook–Levin theorem) that any NP problem can be reduced to SAT in polynomial time, and we now know that solving SAT is subexponential in terms of the size of the SAT problem, but it's possible for the conversion to SAT to grow the problem enough that it's exponential in terms of the original problem.

loading story #50253235
loading story #50253279
jibalt | parent
But even if every problem in NP is sub-exponential (which, as tfpgh notes, this result doesn't prove), how does that make it "more likely" that every such problem is solvable in a polynomial # of steps? I feel like it's a bit like claiming that, because Alex Honnold has shown that a human can free solo El Capitan in less than 4 hours, that makes it "more likely" that I could. To me, his success does not budge the latter probability at all.

It seems to me that the logic only goes the other way ... if ETH had been proven then it would follow that P != NP. With !ETH we really don't know any more about P ?= NP then we did before. Reasoning that P = NP is "more likely" strikes me as a form of a fallacy of affirming the consequent.