Re:P is not equal to NP
by jacobscott on Wednesday October 29, 2008 @01:25AM
(#347163)
Sorry, the key point is that the assertion:
"Therefore, P is not equal to NP, is true and provable in a simply consistent extension B" of B"
does not necessarily imply P \neq NP (the caveat being the B" and B stuff). I'm not really a complexity theory guy, but I would say WHP that this either
(a) does not apply to the most general forms of computation (e.g., what people mean when they ask P =? NP)
"Therefore, P is not equal to NP, is true and provable in a simply consistent extension B" of B"
does not necessarily imply P \neq NP (the caveat being the B" and B stuff). I'm not really a complexity theory guy, but I would say WHP that this either
(a) does not apply to the most general forms of computation (e.g., what people mean when they ask P =? NP)
(b) is wrong