Re: Provability
- From: Michael Press <rubrum@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:01:05 GMT
In article
<rbisrael.20071023142716$7fa6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Robert Israel <israel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Victor Porton <porton@xxxxxxxx> writes:
For famous hypothesis such as Millennium Prize problems (or to be yet
more specific for P=NP problem)...
... how we can (or cannot) be sure that the hypotheses or its negation
is provable.
We can't. In some cases we can do half of this: e.g. if the Riemann
hypothesis or Goldbach's conjecture happens to be false, then its
negation is provable. But if it is true, there is no guarantee that
there is a proof of that.
There are statements which are unprovable nor true nor false in ZFC.
For a specific example can we be sure that either P=NP or P!=NP is
provable?
No. This is even worse than the Riemann hypothesis in that regard:
thus if P=NP there is a polynomial-time algorithm for solving an NP-complete
problem, but there might not be a proof that this algorithm works.
The notion of algorithm shares an important characteristic
with the notion of theorem. A computational method is not
an algorithm until we have accepted a proof of its efficacy.
--
Michael Press
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Provability
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Provability
- References:
- Provability
- From: Victor Porton
- Re: Provability
- From: Robert Israel
- Provability
- Prev by Date: What paper for math problems?
- Next by Date: Re: What paper for math problems?
- Previous by thread: Re: Provability
- Next by thread: Re: Provability
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading