Minimum degree of polynomial time NP complete problem algorithm

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the uncertainty surrounding the P vs. NP problem, particularly whether a minimum degree order for algorithms solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time has been established. While there is a consensus that proving lower bounds is more challenging than demonstrating the existence of efficient algorithms, it is acknowledged that polynomial lower bounds are trivial, with at least O(n) calculations required for any input. The conversation explores the possibility of proving that NP-complete problems cannot be solved in certain polynomial time complexities, such as quadratic or cubic time. However, the general consensus is that while lower bounds exist, they are often problem-dependent and typically lead to exponential upper bounds for NP problems. The complexities of NP-complete problems remain a significant area of inquiry in computational theory.
Sandor
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
So no one is quite sure that P != NP, although they tend to favor that relation. But I was curious, has anyone proved a minimum degree order to any algorithm that solves NP complete problems in polynomial time? In other words, they don't know if it can be done in polynomial time, but do they know that it cannot be done in, say, quadratic time, and requires at least cubic time, or in cubic time and requires at least quartic time, or maybe they know that it is at least of order n^6? Maybe something kookier like n^3*(ln(n))^3?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sandor said:
So no one is quite sure that P != NP, although they tend to favor that relation. But I was curious, has anyone proved a minimum degree order to any algorithm that solves NP complete problems in polynomial time?
It is generally harder to prove lower bounds, as one has to prove that something is impossible, rather than showing a smart algorithm. However, polynomial lower bounds are trivial. Every input character is needed in at least one calculation step, or otherwise is not necessary. This means we have at least ##O(n)## calculations.
In other words, they don't know if it can be done in polynomial time, but do they know that it cannot be done in, say, quadratic time, and requires at least cubic time, or in cubic time and requires at least quartic time, or maybe they know that it is at least of order n^6? Maybe something kookier like n^3*(ln(n))^3?
Depends on the problem. We have a trivial lower bound ##O(n)## and usually an exponential upper bound for NP problems, also trivial, as we simply can check all (exponentially many) possible answers.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K