home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4899 sci.math:15095 comp.theory:2444
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!comlab.ox.ac.uk!oxuniv!annan
- From: annan@vax.oxford.ac.uk
- Newsgroups: sci.crypt,sci.math,comp.theory
- Subject: Re: Cryptography and P=NP
- Message-ID: <1992Nov16.084503.10141@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
- Date: 16 Nov 92 08:45:03 GMT
- References: <1992Nov15.110945.19939@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> <PHR.92Nov15203840@napa.telebit.com> <1e7fvdINN87s@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
- Distribution: inet
- Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <1e7fvdINN87s@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:
- > In article <PHR.92Nov15203840@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com
- > (Paul Rubin) writes:
- >>It is true that if P=NP then all cryptography everywhere (not just RSA)
- >>is dead; but at this point I wouldn't take Swart's claims seriously
- >>without seeing some consensus among complexity efforts that unlike
- >>his previous attempts, his latest effort is free of bugs.
- >
- > Mathematics would also be placed in a surprising position by P=NP.
- > P=NP implies that there is an algorithm which, given a theorem
- > expressed formally in ZF, say, and a number n, either gives a formal
- > proof of the theorem of length at most n, or shows that there is none,
- > and which would take time bounded by some polynomial in n. It wouldn't
- > *necessarily* put us all out of the math research business, but....
-
- And remember, proving P=NP doesn't necessarily mean finding such an algorithm,
- merely proving it exists.
-
- --
- James Annan.
- [--------------------------------------]
- [ "The only good Tory is a lavatory" ]
- [--------------------------------------]
-