P!=NP, right? ETH being wrong is just a fluke and there isnt actually a way for P to be NP?I cannot live in a universe where P=NP
>>17083035P = NP would be great because it will instantly cause a return to a cash-only economy.
>>17083035What's wrong with having P=NP?>>17083038Why would it be cash-only?
>>17083038I keep telling fools that I saw the world before the dot com revolution and it was better in every conceivable way.
>>17083038retard
>>17083042All encryption is based on the fact that you cannot factor large numbers into primes in deterministic polynomial time.
Might as well rope yourself materialist boyAnything is possible even the not possiblePossible = Not Possible
>>17083135>deterministic Retarded
>>17083135Even if P = NP gets proven, that doesnt mean encryption breaks overnightEven if its possible that doesnt mean anybody will be able to do it
>>17083135But just because you can factor numbers in a deterministic polynomial time, doesn't mean that you could factor it in a useful time.
>>17083035ETH implies P ≠ NP; however, the negation of ETH does not imply P = NP.
>>17083139>>17083162“Strong” encryption based on factoring speed has always been a moving target.P = NP would imply that the war against factorization is unwinnable at its core.The alternative leaves the current status quo in place: constantly moving target.
ETH was always a stupid conjecture. That there exists a subexponential algorithm for 3SAT isn't groundbreaking. Call me back when someone shows PH collapses to a small rank or that BQP=P.
>>17083191>ETH was always a stupid conjecture.Your opinion would have been slightly less worthless a month ago, but at least you read the assignment.
>>17083193I've had this opinion for literal years without even knowing this conjecture was called ETH lmao.
>>17083135>All encryption is based on the fact that you cannot factor large numbers into primes in deterministic polynomial time.no, it isnt.factorization based encryption is already on the way out thanks to quantum computing. however, its replacements like lattice based encryption would also become vunerable if P=NP.
>>17083389>I must have secrets!
>>17083191butthurt
>>17083135>All encryptionwrong, new encryption schemes are based on lattice theory>you cannot factor large numbers into primes in deterministic polynomial time.no it has to do with the massive constant time factors. you can have a sub-linear factorization algorithm and it wouldn't fucking help you.
>>17083191>That there exists a subexponential algorithm for 3SAT isn't groundbreakingUltra fucking retard.A subexponential algorithm for 3SAT that doesn't have a massive latency problem would have massive practical boons for entire real material industries that rely on SAT to do constraint solving, like virtually every single engineering field, logistics, etc.no one fucking cares about your gay little mental masturbation theories and quantum computing. it's not useful.
>>17083035Wouldn't it mean that the universe is efficientwhy is that bad
S E T E C E T E C ST E C S EE C S E TC S E T E A S T R O N O M Y S T R O N O M Y T R O N O M Y R O N O M Y O N O M Y N O M Y O N YM YY
>>17083035I'm really hoping whoever solves it first posts it here
>>17083599i will :)
>>17083581Post you private keys then, tough guy.
