Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nnymous109@gmail.com (nnymous109)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Yet another contribution to the P-NP question
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 16:59:02 +0000
Organization: RetroBBS
Message-ID: <02d3628eff8bb2a56feb7e2a828214ca@www.rocksolidbbs.com>
References: <85955d539da522cf777ab489101c0e2a@www.rocksolidbbs.com> <4b415dd5a91ac648bee8224fc3c28aa19706e06f.camel@gmail.com> <a4cacd3261a32cb9a769fbfe6ed1cd15@www.rocksolidbbs.com> <438abf511eae77740728afb4bab9538729a959bf.camel@gmail.com> <9616f94eae0f6b0e99a99f8fa597f348@www.rocksolidbbs.com> <0e4c57e069ba6da23b7ff96bd3a1034930e333c9.camel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="704035"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="WGWI3FjRFxGJ6ITdWK0vrcDT1bUXKXnMN6DMEAZTkUA";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 5809fff5c4fe67d6ec8559c4c0d41f9a0d5474cd
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$CIgmvLKpbgBAbSKEoqpVjexp28a1dIdK2j9sNIjLVdtqJcpujwWqa
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2067
Lines: 20

> 'Superset of NP' is a problem.
>

Why is this so? I think that so long as the inclusion and exclusion
properties pan out, it should be fine.


> Why not just give an example L, such that L∈NP and L∉P.

Mostly because of the strategy I use. If I present an L, and I say that
that L is not in P because there are a metric ton of choices that need
checking, I have to show (beyond any reasonable doubt) that all those
choices need checking.

But if I work backwards and define a situation where I think that there
is no way to avoid checking all cases (e.g., a conjunction of a priori
undecided statements), then I think I can make a better argument.

But working backwards does not lead us to the same starting points of P
and NP, so when I re-run the argument from the precedents, I need to
define new notions.