Re: paper claiming p=np and soap bubbles
From: Jesse F. Hughes (jesse_at_phiwumbda.org)
Date: 07/09/04
- Next message: Edwin Clark: "Re: EIS enries of Roger L. Bagula"
- Previous message: Rainer Rosenthal: "Re: EIS enries of Roger L. Bagula"
- In reply to: gersh_at_bialer.com: "Re: paper claiming p=np and soap bubbles"
- Next in thread: Julian Streicher: "Re: paper claiming p=np and soap bubbles"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 00:51:51 +0200
gersh@bialer.com writes:
> I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say nature can be modeled
> by a turing machine in polynomial time. Otherwise, maybe Turing
> machines should be redefined. I think the more complicated problem is
> how you define. However, if quantum computers can theoretically
> compute NP problems in P time, why shouldn't nature?
Boy, that paragraph is just chock-full, ain't it?
-- Jesse F. Hughes "I have written many words to sci.math, some of them are not even meaningless." --Ross Finlayson
- Next message: Edwin Clark: "Re: EIS enries of Roger L. Bagula"
- Previous message: Rainer Rosenthal: "Re: EIS enries of Roger L. Bagula"
- In reply to: gersh_at_bialer.com: "Re: paper claiming p=np and soap bubbles"
- Next in thread: Julian Streicher: "Re: paper claiming p=np and soap bubbles"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|