From: Jim choate <ravage@bga.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 06:57:22 PDT
To: perry@imsi.com
Subject: Re: GUT and P=NP
In-Reply-To: <9407191149.AA00764@snark.imsi.com>
Message-ID: <199407191356.IAA28134@zoom.bga.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> 
> 
> Ken Kirksey says:
> > I was reading Hawking's _Black Holes & Baby Universes_ and an interesting
> > question struck me:  If a Grand Unified Theory exists, would it not 
> > prove P=NP to be true?
> 
> No.
> 
> .pm
> 
Ok Perry, I am not going to let you off that easily. Could you elucidate why
you feel that such a GUT would not solve this problem even in principle? If
a GUT could answer definitively whether there were a many-worls interpretation
this would definately address at least peripheral aspects of the P=NP problem.
It would also, necessarily, describe some limitations on computations and 
problem complexity. 

When one considers that there is no clear definition or proof of the exact 
solutions methods to prove P=NP it seems premature to posit such a definate
answer. While it might not be true that it would solve the problem in toto
it may be true that a clarification of the boundary conditions might make
the solution easier by reducing the number of choices of methodology one 
might look at.

I am interested on why you feel a GUT would have no effect, at least, on 
the boundary conditions of the problem?

Take care.