P != NP Proof
نویسنده
چکیده
This paper demonstrates that P ≠ NP. The way was to generalize the traditional definitions of the classes P and NP, to construct an artificial problem (a generalization to SAT: The XG-SAT, much more difficult than the former) and then to demonstrate that it is in NP but not in P (where the classes P and NP are generalized and called too simply P and NP in this paper, and then it is explained why the traditional classes P and NP should be fixed and replaced by these generalized ones into Theory of Computer Science). The demonstration consists of: 1. Definition of Restricted Type X Program 2. Definition of the Extended General Problem of Satisfiability of a Boolean Formula – XG-SAT 3. Generalization to classes P and NP 4. Demonstration that the XG-SAT is in NP 5. Demonstration that the XG-SAT is not in P 6. Demonstration that the Baker-Gill-Solovay Theorem does not refute the proof 7. Demonstration that the Razborov-Rudich Theorem does not refute the proof 8. Demonstration that the Aaronson-Wigderson Theorem does not refute the proof The paper demonstrates three new revolutionary ideas in the foundations of Computational Complexity Theory, against the established theory in the area: 1. Language Incompleteness: There are computational decision problems that are not languages (cannot be modeled as string acceptance testing to languages); 2. NP-Completeness Incompleteness: The Cook-Levin Theorem and the concept of NP-Completeness are false, whence it cannot in general be applied on an instance of the XG-SAT to reduce it to one of the SAT; and 3. SAT's weakness: The complexity class of the SAT maybe does not decide P versus NP question (if SAT is not in P then NP ≠ P; on the other hand, SAT in P doesn’t imply NP = P). The objective of the paper is just help the complexity theorists about their main question: If I am right, then the P versus NP Clay Mathematics Institute Prize must be canceled and replaced by the correct problem intended by them: "Is SAT in P?" Mathematics Subject Classification (2009). Primary 68Q15; Secondary 68Q17.
منابع مشابه
Towards NP−P via Proof Complexity and Search Draft — Comments Appreciated
This is a survey of work on proof complexity and proof search, as motivated by the P versus NP problem. We discuss propositional proof complexity, Cook’s program, proof automatizability, proof search, algorithms for satisfiability, and the state of the art of our (in)ability to separate P and NP .
متن کاملTowards NP-P via proof complexity and search
This is a survey of work on proof complexity and proof search from a logicoalgorithmic viewpoint, as motivated by the P versus NP problem. We discuss propositional proof complexity, Cook’s program, proof automatizability, proof search, algorithms for satisfiability, and the state of the art of our (in)ability to separate P and NP .
متن کاملCritique of Barbosa's "P != NP Proof"
We review Andr\'e Luiz Barbosa's paper"P != NP Proof,"in which the classes P and NP are generalized and claimed to be proven separate. We highlight inherent ambiguities in Barbosa's definitions, and show that attempts to resolve this ambiguity lead to flaws in the proof of his main result.
متن کاملNP versus P : A proof that NP is not equaled to P
This proof of P ≠ NP is based on better estimates of lower bounds on the time complexity that hold for all solution algorithms. Almost no special knowledge is needed to understand the proof. A short review of the main steps and ideas of the proof can be seen in the Introduction below.
متن کاملProof system representations of degrees of disjoint NP-pairs
Let D be a set of many-one degrees of disjoint NP-pairs. We define a proof system representation of D to be a set of propositional proof systems P such that each degree in D contains the canonical NP-pair of a corresponding proof system in P and the degree structure of D is reflected by the simulation order among the corresponding proof systems in P. We also define a nesting representation of D...
متن کامل$P \ne NP$, propositional proof complexity, and resolution lower bounds for the weak pigeonhole principle
Recent results established exponential lower bounds for the length of any Resolution proof for the weak pigeonhole principle. More formally, it was proved that any Resolution proof for the weak pigeonhole principle, with n holes and any number of pigeons, is of length Ω(2n ǫ ), (for a constant ǫ = 1/3). One corollary is that certain propositional formulations of the statement P 6= NP do not hav...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- CoRR
دوره abs/0907.3965 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2009