home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.theory
- Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!torn!nott!bnrgate!bcars267!bucknerb
- From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
- Subject: Re: Cryptography and P=NP
- Message-ID: <1992Nov17.155308.25712@bnr.ca>
- Sender: news@bnr.ca (usenet)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: bcars188
- Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
- References: <1992Nov15.110945.19939@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> <15115@ember.UUCP> <Nov.16.16.59.47.1992.6436@remus.rutgers.edu>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:53:08 GMT
- Lines: 34
-
- In article <Nov.16.16.59.47.1992.6436@remus.rutgers.edu> clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
- >In article <15115@ember.UUCP>, Paul Colley writes:
- >
- >> If he means that anyone who believes P MIGHT be equal to NP is "an
- >> idiot", then I think Chris should retract his statement.
- >
- >Nope.
- >
- >> The problem is open.
- >
- >Sure, but P=NP and P<>NP are certainly not equally likely.
-
- Of course; one is true (probability = 1) and the other false
- (probability = 0).
-
- >The a priori
- >evidence that P<>NP is *overwhelming*; to claim that P=NP has a chance
- >of being true is worse than claiming that there is a chance of only a
- >finite number of twin primes existing. Both are unproven, but there are
- >*very* strong reasons for believing them to be true. So strong that
- >anyone who believes otherwise must be either ignorant or a crackpot.
-
- All of those "very strong reasons" boil down to 'It sure seems
- that way, doesn't it?'
- I'd be willing to make a significant bet against
- large odds that P<>NP, but I wouldn't bet my life. So that puts
- me in the "P MIGHT be equal to NP" camp. I regard
- this as due caution.
-
- --
- at Bell-Northern Research
- voice: (613) 765-2739
- Canada Post: P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
- I do not claim that BNR holds these views.
-