precise statement
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

43
(FIVE YEARS 11)

H-INDEX

5
(FIVE YEARS 0)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Vega

P versus NP is considered as one of the most important open problems in computer science. This consists in knowing the answer of the following question: Is P equal to NP? A precise statement of the P versus NP problem was introduced independently by Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin. Since that date, all efforts to find a proof for this problem have failed. Another major complexity class is coNP. Whether NP = coNP is another fundamental question that it is as important as it is unresolved. In 1979, Fortune showed that if any sparse language is coNP-complete, then P = NP. We prove there is a possible sparse language in coNP-complete. In this way, we demonstrate the complexity class P is equal to NP.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Vega

P versus NP is considered as one of the most important open problems in computer science. This consists in knowing the answer of the following question: Is P equal to NP? A precise statement of the P versus NP problem was introduced independently by Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin. Since that date, all efforts to find a proof for this problem have failed. Another major complexity class is coNP. Whether NP = coNP is another fundamental question that it is as important as it is unresolved. In 1979, Fortune showed that if any sparse language is coNP-complete, then P = NP. We prove there is a possible sparse language in coNP-complete. In this way, we demonstrate the complexity class P is equal to NP.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Vega

P versus NP is considered as one of the most important open problems in computer science. This consists in knowing the answer of the following question: Is P equal to NP? A precise statement of the P versus NP problem was introduced independently by Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin. Since that date, all efforts to find a proof for this problem have failed. Another major complexity class is coNP. Whether NP = coNP is another fundamental question that it is as important as it is unresolved. In 1979, Fortune showed that if any sparse language is coNP-complete, then P = NP. We prove there is a possible sparse language in coNP-complete. In this way, we demonstrate the complexity class P is equal to NP.


Author(s):  
Frank Vega

P versus NP is considered as one of the most important open problems in computer science. This consists in knowing the answer of the following question: Is P equal to NP? A precise statement of the P versus NP problem was introduced independently by Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin. Since that date, all efforts to find a proof for this problem have failed. Another major complexity class is coNP. Whether NP = coNP is another fundamental question that it is as important as it is unresolved. In 1979, Fortune showed that if any sparse language is coNP-complete, then P = NP. We prove there is a possible sparse language in coNP-complete. In this way, we demonstrate the complexity class P is equal to NP.


2021 ◽  
pp. 000312242110041
Author(s):  
Ian Lundberg ◽  
Rebecca Johnson ◽  
Brandon M. Stewart

We make only one point in this article. Every quantitative study must be able to answer the question: what is your estimand? The estimand is the target quantity—the purpose of the statistical analysis. Much attention is already placed on how to do estimation; a similar degree of care should be given to defining the thing we are estimating. We advocate that authors state the central quantity of each analysis—the theoretical estimand—in precise terms that exist outside of any statistical model. In our framework, researchers do three things: (1) set a theoretical estimand, clearly connecting this quantity to theory; (2) link to an empirical estimand, which is informative about the theoretical estimand under some identification assumptions; and (3) learn from data. Adding precise estimands to research practice expands the space of theoretical questions, clarifies how evidence can speak to those questions, and unlocks new tools for estimation. By grounding all three steps in a precise statement of the target quantity, our framework connects statistical evidence to theory.


Author(s):  
Alberto Corti

Abstract Scientific realism is usually presented as if metaphysical realism (i.e. the thesis that there is a structured mind-independent external world) were one of its essential parts. This paper aims to examine how weak the metaphysical commitments endorsed by scientific realists could be. I will argue that scientific realism could be stated without accepting any form of metaphysical realism. Such a conclusion does not go as far as to try to combine scientific realism with metaphysical antirealism. Instead, it amounts to the combination of the former with a weaker view, called quietism, which is agnostic on the existence of mind-independent structures. In Sect. 2, I will argue that the minimal claim that brings together every scientific realist view is devoid of any metaphysical commitment. In Sect. 3, I will define metaphysical realism and antirealism. Such work will be instrumental in providing a more precise statement of quietism. Finally (Sect. 4), I will argue that assuming quietism, it is still possible to make sense of the debate between scientific realists and antirealists.


Author(s):  
Frank Vega

P versus NP is considered as one of the most important open problems in computer science. This consists in knowing the answer of the following question: Is P equal to NP? The precise statement of the P versus NP problem was introduced independently by Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin. Since that date, all efforts to find a proof for this problem have failed. Another major complexity class is P-Sel. P-Sel is the class of decision problems for which there is a polynomial time algorithm (called a selector) with the following property: Whenever it’s given two instances, a “yes” and a “no” instance, the algorithm can always decide which is the “yes” instance. It is known that if NP is contained in P-Sel, then P = NP. We claim a possible selector for 3SAT and thus, P = NP.


Author(s):  
Frank Vega

P versus NP is considered as one of the most important open problems in computer science. This consists in knowing the answer of the following question: Is P equal to NP? It was essentially mentioned in 1955 from a letter written by John Nash to the United States National Security Agency. However, a precise statement of the P versus NP problem was introduced independently by Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin. Since that date, all efforts to find a proof for this problem have failed. Another major complexity classes are L and NL. Whether L = NL is another fundamental question that it is as important as it is unresolved. We demonstrate that every problem in NP could be NL-reduced to another problem in L. In this way, we prove that every problem in NP is in NL with L Oracle. Moreover, we show the complexity class NP is equal to NL, since it is well-known that the logarithmic space oracle hierarchy collapses into NL.


Author(s):  
Frank Vega

P versus NP is considered as one of the most important open problems in computer science. This consists in knowing the answer of the following question: Is P equal to NP? It was essentially mentioned in 1955 from a letter written by John Nash to the United States National Security Agency. However, a precise statement of the P versus NP problem was introduced independently by Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin. Since that date, all efforts to find a proof for this problem have failed. Another major complexity classes are L and NL. Whether L = NL is another fundamental question that it is as important as it is unresolved. We demonstrate that every problem in NP could be NL-reduced to another problem in L.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lajos Hajdu

AbstractWe prove that apart from explicitly given cases, described in terms of Dickson polynomials, a polynomial $$f\in \mathbb {Q}[x]$$f∈Q[x] can have at most one shift $$f(x)-\lambda $$f(x)-λ$$(\lambda \in \mathbb {C})$$(λ∈C) of the form $$u(g(x))^q(h(x))^k$$u(g(x))q(h(x))k with $$u\in \mathbb {C}$$u∈C, $$g,h\in \mathbb {C}[x]$$g,h∈C[x] and either $$\deg (g)=2$$deg(g)=2, k is even, $$q=k/2$$q=k/2 or $$\deg (g)\le 1$$deg(g)≤1, $$k\ge 2$$k≥2, $$q\ge 1$$q≥1. This is shown by handling the case of two possible shifts, which was an open issue. As an application, we give a precise statement yielding a description of polynomials f having infinitely many shifted power (S-integral) values, and a complete description of superelliptic equations having infinitely many S-integral solutions when the polynomial involved is composite. In the case where there are finitely many solutions, our results yield effective bounds for them. Finally, as further applications, we give effective results for polynomial values in the solutions of Pell equations and in non-degenerate binary recurrence sequences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document