home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.crypt:5059 sci.math:15285 comp.theory:2484
- Newsgroups: sci.crypt,sci.math,comp.theory
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!ruuinf!piet
- From: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum)
- Subject: Re: Cryptography and P=NP
- Sender: network-news@cs.ruu.nl
- Message-ID: <1992Nov20.090548.5840@cs.ruu.nl>
- In-Reply-To: lwloen@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Larry Loen)
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:05:48 GMT
- Reply-To: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum)
- References: <1992Nov16.084503.10141@vax.oxford.ac.uk> <BxvEF3.Kqw.2@cs.cmu.edu> <1992Nov18.193900.20199@rchland.ibm.com> <1992Nov19.172719.1540@fid.morgan.com> <1992Nov19.193036.26711@rchland.ibm.com>
- Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
- Followup-To: sci.crypt
- Lines: 18
-
- >>>>> lwloen@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Larry Loen) (LL) writes:
-
- LL> Surely, it can't be this easy. I get squeamish whenever I see clocks and
- LL> numbers on arguments of this kind. Is the cardinality of the set of
- LL> P algorithms == number of natural numbers?
-
- The set of all programs is countable. Each program is just a (finite)
- string in a programming language (e.g. Turing machines), and the set of
- finite strings over a finite alphabet is countable (order the strings
- lexicographically).
-
- LL> Why doesn't Cantor's diagonal
- LL> argument crop up somewhere and spoil everything? (I don't necessarily mean
- LL> the original, but an appropriate analog of it).
-
- Why should it?
- --
- Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.ruu.nl>
-