an argument for strongpstrong np - rensselaer polytechnic institute.pdfVIP

An Argument for P=NP Selmer Bringsjord Joshua Taylor∗ Department of Cognitive Science Department of Computer Science The Rensselaer AI Reasoning (RAIR) Lab Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Troy NY 12180 USA /∼brings {selmer,tayloj}@ version of 5.31.05 • blue = new material created in light of a particular commentator • red = new material created in light of 2nd commentator (who claimed that we smuggle in exponentially growing hardware) • purple = latest additions due to our own further research and reflection ∗We’re greatly indebted to Michael Zenzen for many valuable discussions about the P=?NP problem and physics (simpliciter and digital), and to Jim Fahey for discussions about such physics and mixed-mode dual-diamond operators in modal logic. The presentation of the core arguments herein to the Spring 2005 edition of Bringsjord’s graduate seminar, Logic Artificial Intelligence, and his guest lectures on P=?NP in the 2005 Formal Foundations of Cognitive Science graduate seminar, sparked a number of helpful objections and suggestions, for which we are grateful. We’re indebted as well to two anonymous commentators for trenchant comments. Though the two arguments herein (the second of which seems to establish P=NP) are for weal or woe Bringsjord’s, Taylor’s astute objections catalyzed crucial refinements. The Clay Mathematics Institute offers a $1 million prize for a solution to the P=?NP problem.1 We look forward to receiving our award — but concede t