Contradiction proof for inequality of P and NP? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Proof for P-complete is not closed under intersectionProof of sum of powerset?Contradiction between best-case running time of insertion sort and $nlog n$ lower bound?bounded length CoNP proofLogarithmic Randomness is Necessary for PCP TheoremTrouble seeing the contradiction in diagonalization proofIs it always possible to have one part of the reduction?Is this language NP Hard?Testing algorithm for a modified sieve of EratosthenesFinding a complexity by solving inequality

Mistake in years of experience in resume?

Implementing 3DES algorithm in Java: is my code secure?

Will I lose my paid in full property

How would this chord from "Rocket Man" be analyzed?

c++ diamond problem - How to call base method only once

How to open locks without disable device?

Are all CP/M-80 implementations binary compatible?

Married in secret, can marital status in passport be changed at a later date?

Is it OK if I do not take the receipt in Germany?

Co-worker works way more than he should

Additive group of local rings

"Rubric" as meaning "signature" or "personal mark" -- is this accepted usage?

What was Apollo 13's "Little Jolt" after MECO?

How to use @AuraEnabled base class method in Lightning Component?

What *exactly* is electrical current, voltage, and resistance?

Can you stand up from being prone using Skirmisher outside of your turn?

How to get even lighting when using flash for group photos near wall?

What is the term for a person whose job is to place products on shelves in stores?

Multiple options vs single option UI

Why did Israel vote against lifting the American embargo on Cuba?

Could moose/elk survive in the Amazon forest?

Are there moral objections to a life motivated purely by money? How to sway a person from this lifestyle?

Does Mathematica have an implementation of the Poisson binomial distribution?

Seek and ye shall find



Contradiction proof for inequality of P and NP?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Proof for P-complete is not closed under intersectionProof of sum of powerset?Contradiction between best-case running time of insertion sort and $nlog n$ lower bound?bounded length CoNP proofLogarithmic Randomness is Necessary for PCP TheoremTrouble seeing the contradiction in diagonalization proofIs it always possible to have one part of the reduction?Is this language NP Hard?Testing algorithm for a modified sieve of EratosthenesFinding a complexity by solving inequality










1












$begingroup$


I'm trying to argue that N is not equal NP using hierarchy theorems. This is my argument, but when I showed it to our teacher and after deduction, he said that this is problematic where I can't find a compelling reason to accept.




We start off by assuming that $P=NP$. Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$. As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$. On the contrary, the time hierarchy theorem states that there should be a language $A in TIME(n^k+1)$, that's not in $TIME(n^k)$. This would lead us to conclude that $A$ is in $P$, while not in $NP$, which is a contradiction to our first assumption. So, we came to the conclusion that $P neq NP$.




Is there something wrong with my proof? I was struggling for hours before asking this, though!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$
















    1












    $begingroup$


    I'm trying to argue that N is not equal NP using hierarchy theorems. This is my argument, but when I showed it to our teacher and after deduction, he said that this is problematic where I can't find a compelling reason to accept.




    We start off by assuming that $P=NP$. Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$. As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$. On the contrary, the time hierarchy theorem states that there should be a language $A in TIME(n^k+1)$, that's not in $TIME(n^k)$. This would lead us to conclude that $A$ is in $P$, while not in $NP$, which is a contradiction to our first assumption. So, we came to the conclusion that $P neq NP$.




    Is there something wrong with my proof? I was struggling for hours before asking this, though!










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$














      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      I'm trying to argue that N is not equal NP using hierarchy theorems. This is my argument, but when I showed it to our teacher and after deduction, he said that this is problematic where I can't find a compelling reason to accept.




      We start off by assuming that $P=NP$. Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$. As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$. On the contrary, the time hierarchy theorem states that there should be a language $A in TIME(n^k+1)$, that's not in $TIME(n^k)$. This would lead us to conclude that $A$ is in $P$, while not in $NP$, which is a contradiction to our first assumption. So, we came to the conclusion that $P neq NP$.




      Is there something wrong with my proof? I was struggling for hours before asking this, though!










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I'm trying to argue that N is not equal NP using hierarchy theorems. This is my argument, but when I showed it to our teacher and after deduction, he said that this is problematic where I can't find a compelling reason to accept.




      We start off by assuming that $P=NP$. Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$. As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$. On the contrary, the time hierarchy theorem states that there should be a language $A in TIME(n^k+1)$, that's not in $TIME(n^k)$. This would lead us to conclude that $A$ is in $P$, while not in $NP$, which is a contradiction to our first assumption. So, we came to the conclusion that $P neq NP$.




      Is there something wrong with my proof? I was struggling for hours before asking this, though!







      complexity-theory time-complexity






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 2 hours ago









      inverted_indexinverted_index

      1384




      1384




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$


          Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$.




          Sure.




          As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$.




          No. Polynomial time reductions aren't free. We can say it takes $O(n^r(L))$ time to reduce language $L$ to $SAT$, where $r(L)$ is the exponent in the polynomial time reduction used. This is where your argument falls apart. There is no finite $k$ such that for all $L in NP$ we have $r(L) < k$. At least this does not follow from $P = NP$ and would be a much stronger statement.



          And this stronger statement does indeed conflict with the time hierarchy theorem, which tells us that $P$ can not collapse into $TIME(n^k)$, let alone all of $NP$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "419"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f108496%2fcontradiction-proof-for-inequality-of-p-and-np%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            4












            $begingroup$


            Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$.




            Sure.




            As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$.




            No. Polynomial time reductions aren't free. We can say it takes $O(n^r(L))$ time to reduce language $L$ to $SAT$, where $r(L)$ is the exponent in the polynomial time reduction used. This is where your argument falls apart. There is no finite $k$ such that for all $L in NP$ we have $r(L) < k$. At least this does not follow from $P = NP$ and would be a much stronger statement.



            And this stronger statement does indeed conflict with the time hierarchy theorem, which tells us that $P$ can not collapse into $TIME(n^k)$, let alone all of $NP$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$

















              4












              $begingroup$


              Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$.




              Sure.




              As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$.




              No. Polynomial time reductions aren't free. We can say it takes $O(n^r(L))$ time to reduce language $L$ to $SAT$, where $r(L)$ is the exponent in the polynomial time reduction used. This is where your argument falls apart. There is no finite $k$ such that for all $L in NP$ we have $r(L) < k$. At least this does not follow from $P = NP$ and would be a much stronger statement.



              And this stronger statement does indeed conflict with the time hierarchy theorem, which tells us that $P$ can not collapse into $TIME(n^k)$, let alone all of $NP$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$















                4












                4








                4





                $begingroup$


                Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$.




                Sure.




                As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$.




                No. Polynomial time reductions aren't free. We can say it takes $O(n^r(L))$ time to reduce language $L$ to $SAT$, where $r(L)$ is the exponent in the polynomial time reduction used. This is where your argument falls apart. There is no finite $k$ such that for all $L in NP$ we have $r(L) < k$. At least this does not follow from $P = NP$ and would be a much stronger statement.



                And this stronger statement does indeed conflict with the time hierarchy theorem, which tells us that $P$ can not collapse into $TIME(n^k)$, let alone all of $NP$.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$




                Then it yields that $SAT in P$ which itself then follows that $SAT in TIME(n^k)$.




                Sure.




                As stands, we are able to do reduce every language in $NP$ to $SAT$. Therefore, $NP subseteq TIME(n^k)$.




                No. Polynomial time reductions aren't free. We can say it takes $O(n^r(L))$ time to reduce language $L$ to $SAT$, where $r(L)$ is the exponent in the polynomial time reduction used. This is where your argument falls apart. There is no finite $k$ such that for all $L in NP$ we have $r(L) < k$. At least this does not follow from $P = NP$ and would be a much stronger statement.



                And this stronger statement does indeed conflict with the time hierarchy theorem, which tells us that $P$ can not collapse into $TIME(n^k)$, let alone all of $NP$.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 28 mins ago

























                answered 1 hour ago









                orlporlp

                6,1251826




                6,1251826



























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Computer Science Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f108496%2fcontradiction-proof-for-inequality-of-p-and-np%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                    Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                    Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її