P != NP and I'm completely convinced of it. There is literally no algorithm that can bring NP problems down to polynomial time. It’s not a skill issue on humanity's end—it's a literal limitation of reality itself.Classical and quantum computers both rely on physical objects to store and process information. Trying to solve an NP problem on physical hardware is like trying to measure an infinite heap of sticks using another infinite heap of sticks. No matter how clever your encoding algorithm is, you're still bound by physical constraints: you need an infinite amount of sticks and an infinite amount of time to finish the job.The core issue is that NP problems are fundamental and brute force is essentially built into their nature—there is no secret mathematical back door waiting to be unlocked. Instead of coping about P=NP, our actual bottleneck is hardware state-encoding. What we really need are novel physical paradigms for ultra-dense encoding and fast retrieval just to make near-optimal approximations practical for real-world use.
>It’s not ... —it's a ...>The core issue is ...—there is no
>>17058599>You can't lower NP into P!>What we need to do is lower NP into constant time insteadBrilliant conjecture, professor.
>>17058599>there is no secret mathematical back door waiting to be unlocked[look up from a shadowy chair and smirks]...youre...right.
>>17058599>Trying to solve an NP problem on physical hardware is like trying to measure an infinite heap of sticks using another infinite heap of sticks. No matter how clever your encoding algorithm is, you're still bound by physical constraints: you need an infinite amount of sticks and an infinite amount of time to finish the job.Anon that's still the case with polynomial time algorithms
>>17058599You actually stumbled on something far more relevant, that almost every algorithm P itself is factually useless. I will be accused of schizo babble but it's just common sense; nobody that has worked with polynomials would touch an exponent in the triple digits. Any order beyond the low double digits is no better than NP hard. Not unless you have a religious belief in prefactors being unfathomably small to compensate.
>>17058599What are you talking about there are multiple solutions, the only question is how fast can you solve?
>>17058599Doesn't mean jack shit till you prove it
>>17058599It could very well be the case that there is some algorithm, it's just a galactic algorithm. Useless for the small things we deal with in day to day life.Like there's that one matrix multiplication thing that really does seem impossible at first blush. And in practice it's useless since there's only a speed-up one absolutely massive matrices.
>>17058599>it's a literal limitation of reality itselfTo be precise, it's a limitation of our apparent reality (classical or relativistic.) It's not a limitation if you consider the quantum nature of reality, where the wavefunction ("the," not "a") can compute an unlimited number of superpositions at the same time. There's a reason quantum computing threatens encryption: because a quantum computer can compute (some) NP problems in P time, by virtue of not being bound by decoherence like all of us.
