Now back to the question: Is there a Proof, that each solution to a NP-complete problem can be used to solve the factoring problem? (its this way, you need to prove, that any solution to your new problem is a solution for a known np-hard one) So what i meant: Could NP be the union of (at least) two disjunct sets of problems, which can reduce to other problems in the same set, but not to problems in the other set? If not, how do you prove it? Citations are welcomed.
Yes. Assume your solution is in P, the transformation is in P, both are polynomials with huge factors/exponents, you will only see a real difference expressed in percent, when your numbers get real big. But for common NP-hard problems, the transformation is rather "simple".
So you can use SAT to implement a turing machine, you can use the TSP to implement SAT. But if you have a new NP-hard problem, which can be simulated by a non-deterministic TM, this does not tell you, that the problem can simulate a a TM or SAT? Or is it an requirement for a np-hard problem not only to run on a TM, but to implement one, as SAT does?
For most (all?) they are proven as np-hard, because they can be used to solve a NP-hard problem with a transformation, which lies in P. But is there any proof, that you can transform any NP-hard problem into any other? If you think of a graph of np-hard problems (i guess most go back via a few hops to 3SAT?), then there may be different connected components, or is there a proof, why the graph is connected?
Yeah. I do not think its a problem with gender, nor a problem with games or kids. Some games use violence as a game element, you are violent without even knowing the gender of other players. And you should not let your kid play violent games until a certain age, when they need to decide this themselfes.
transparent updating is another issue. You grant a program the the right to install arbitrary binary code. And in case of firefox on windows, even with administrator rights (chrome gets it better with user privileges, but the interesting data is in your home anyway).
so, what are your alternatives? - trust paths: good luck with the transitivity - personal meetings: always the best choice, if your privacy is important - trusting a central instance. Good luck chosing one.
I know several webinterfaces... but how do you do it yourself? Do you need to scrape the whole web of trust, until you have all keys on your keyring to do then a search on the graph?
Do you really know, he's the real one? he's handing out correct cards, nobody tempered with? Do you watch the cards all the time, so nobody could swap them, when you look away for a moment? You need to max out your paranoia.
Slashdot Mirror
And, is bitkeeper still around, now that everyone is using git?
Now back to the question: Is there a Proof, that each solution to a NP-complete problem can be used to solve the factoring problem?
(its this way, you need to prove, that any solution to your new problem is a solution for a known np-hard one)
So what i meant: Could NP be the union of (at least) two disjunct sets of problems, which can reduce to other problems in the same set, but not to problems in the other set? If not, how do you prove it? Citations are welcomed.
Yes. Assume your solution is in P, the transformation is in P, both are polynomials with huge factors/exponents, you will only see a real difference expressed in percent, when your numbers get real big. But for common NP-hard problems, the transformation is rather "simple".
So you can use SAT to implement a turing machine, you can use the TSP to implement SAT. But if you have a new NP-hard problem, which can be simulated by a non-deterministic TM, this does not tell you, that the problem can simulate a a TM or SAT? Or is it an requirement for a np-hard problem not only to run on a TM, but to implement one, as SAT does?
The idea is, how they scale. If you think of a finite set of possible inputs, everything is O(1).
(all?) = (all known?)
no, P will always be a (real) subset of NP.
You can solve all problems in P with a non-deterministic turing machine. You have problems in P, which are not NP-hard.
[ ]
For most (all?) they are proven as np-hard, because they can be used to solve a NP-hard problem with a transformation, which lies in P. But is there any proof, that you can transform any NP-hard problem into any other? If you think of a graph of np-hard problems (i guess most go back via a few hops to 3SAT?), then there may be different connected components, or is there a proof, why the graph is connected?
hmm, and the new one with the new error is then the new reference? Not that it really matters ...
I guess its not easy to sync it with the existing ones. NTP will not do the job ;).
I am talking about firefox updates.
> First time accepted submitter chimeraha (3594169)
Wayne?
just saying
Why? When canonical tries to make an own OS instead of a linux distro, they should not require others to do the work for them.
Why aren't you linking to the blogpost, instead of the article quoting the blogpost?
or adblock them. you can get an expression, which blocks the images, only on collapsed tweets
Yeah. I do not think its a problem with gender, nor a problem with games or kids.
Some games use violence as a game element, you are violent without even knowing the gender of other players.
And you should not let your kid play violent games until a certain age, when they need to decide this themselfes.
transparent updating is another issue. You grant a program the the right to install arbitrary binary code. And in case of firefox on windows, even with administrator rights (chrome gets it better with user privileges, but the interesting data is in your home anyway).
so, what are your alternatives?
- trust paths: good luck with the transitivity
- personal meetings: always the best choice, if your privacy is important
- trusting a central instance. Good luck chosing one.
I know several webinterfaces ... but how do you do it yourself? Do you need to scrape the whole web of trust, until you have all keys on your keyring to do then a search on the graph?
on the other hand ... how often do your contacts look for revocations of your key? Most people do not ever refresh their keyring.
then it's just too late. and how many people will actually remove a compromised CA from their CA list? like 0.1%?
Do you really know, he's the real one? he's handing out correct cards, nobody tempered with? Do you watch the cards all the time, so nobody could swap them, when you look away for a moment? You need to max out your paranoia.
its kind of a routing problem.
so you could do a two-step auth. look at your trust paths, ask yourself how much verification each person may have done to the next.
Or try to get shorter trust paths. And more.