Is NP-Complete Harder to Solve than NP-Hard?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jetoso
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
NP-Complete problems are a subset of NP-Hard problems, meaning all NP-Complete problems are NP-Hard, but not all NP-Hard problems are NP-Complete. NP-Complete problems can be solved in polynomial time if a solution exists, while NP-Hard problems may not even be solvable in polynomial time and include problems like the halting problem. The distinction lies in the fact that NP-Hard problems that are not NP-Complete require more computational resources and can be more complex. Therefore, NP-Hard problems are generally considered harder than NP-Complete problems due to their broader scope and potential unsolvability. This discussion highlights the nuances in classifying problem difficulty within computational theory.
jetoso
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
I have a question. Is the class of problems NP-Complete more difficult to solve than the class of problems NP-Hard?

I mean, NP-Complete problems are in NP, and also are NP-Hard, but not all NP-Hard problems are in NP... How to tell which one is more difficult to solve?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The set of problems that are NP-hard is a strict superset of the problems that are NP-complete. Some problems (like the halting problem) are NP-hard, but not in NP.
 
NP-Hard problems that are not NP-Complete are 'harder' than NP problems, in general, in that they take up more computational resources of some type: memory, time, alternation, randomness, etc.
 
Or as Nate mentioned, NP-hard problems might be impossible to solve in general. You can tell the difference in difficulty between NP-hard and NP-complete problems because the class NP includes everything easier than its "toughest" problems--if a problem is not in NP, it is harder than all the problems in NP.

By the way, would you post things like this in the future in the Programming forum, as it is a computer science question?
 
Last edited:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top