Arthur J. O'Dwyer wrote: > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Randy wrote: [...] > > What on earth don't you understand? It seems like you came into the > discussion and said a lot of wrong things at once, and then everybody > else replied and said, "No, that's wrong, here's what's right." And > now you're saying that complexity analysis must be irrelevant to > (something; it's unclear what). No offense, but it's coming off as > "sour grapes." > > -Arthur
OK. In lay terms (as the OP requested), why is NP meaningful to practitioners? What utilitarian subtlety does it capture that "exponential" does not?