|
|
Re: paper claiming p=np and soap bubbles
Posted:
Jul 7, 2004 9:38 PM
|
|
Quote from his reference:
"If you believe, as many do, that hypercomputational processes are always
merely mathematical, and never physically real, you can't be rational and at
the same time refuse to accept our case for P=NP."
What does that mean? Believe then I'm not rational, and refuse to accept
case? OR Not believe, and be rational and accept case?
** Clarity avoids you.
"Craig Feinstein" <cafeinst@msn.com> wrote in message
news://b671fc3e.0407070831.a50a0b7@posting.google.com...
> The paper is the best argument I have heard for p=np, even though I
> believe the opposite. It can be found here:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.CC/0406056
> It brings out a great question.
>
> Basically, the argument is that since soap bubbles can be made to
> solve NP-complete problems, particularly the Steiner tree graph
> problem, in what appears to be polynomial time and physics on a
> macroscopic level can be modeled as a Turing machine, it must be true
> that p=np.
>
> What I would like to know from any physicists out there is why do soap
> bubbles work in such a way that they are able to solve the Steiner
> tree graph problem?How is nature able to quickly solve problems that
> we cannot solve quickly?
>
> Craig
|
|
