Post by JonRotation and inversion of a parabola in E^2.
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/jon8338/math/id40.html
NP=P can drive out anything come back at me with overwhelming support
for Martin Musatov's proof NP==P,
Finite Fields are Better Booleans6 Reverse Engineering Finite. Field
Network Models. We are currently developing procedures for reverse
engineering networks over finite fields extending ...http://
www.ece.uprm.edu/crc/crc2003/papers/HumbertoOrtiz.pdf - - Cached -
Similar pagesPLoS ONE: Reverse Engineering Time
http://biblioteca.universia.net/ficha.do%3Fid%3D21827909
Dear Thomas,
It is an NP -complete problem. Besides that, sorting networks can of
the sorting network bubblesort consists of a first diagonal of n -1.
[1]http://www.inf.fh-flensburg.de/lang/algorithmen/sortieren/networks/
sortieren.htm
Further, wildcard dimensions in augmented star and bubble-sort
networks (corresponding to any fault scenario), a complete bubble sort
graph can be constructed. Hamiltonian path in an arbitrary graph is NP-
complete in general.
[2]http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel2/3028/8621/00378667.pdf%3Farnumber%
Merge Sort, according to Knuth, InsertSort is almost as bad as
BubbleSort, which are O(n*n). Look at the back pack problem, well
known to be NP-complete.
[3]http://c2.com/cgi/wiki%3FMergeSortDiscussion
Algorithms: An Overview of Complexity For example, bubble sort is
tractable whereas A problem X is NP-complete if it is in NP and if
every other problem in NP both.
[4]http://www.comp.dit.ie/rlawlor/Alg_DS/Complexity/P_NP_NP-
complete.pdf
Does this clarify the proof?
Thank you,
Martin Musatov
Thank you for the pdf-document.
It seems to me that in the proof, the fact that
bubble-sort and quick-sort lead to the same result,
i.e. sorting the elements, must absolutely essential
for proving the problem P = NP.
I now that quick-sort is O(n^2), i.e. sorting
can be done in polynomial time using quick-sort.
Why does the author of that paper think that
bubble-Sort would be NP-complete.
As far as I now, bubble-sort is also O(n^2),
it also works in polynomial time.
Where did the author found that, bubble-sort
would be NP-complete? That would be new to me.
Thomas
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Musatov [mailto:***@gmail.com]
Sent: Fri 5/29/2009 10:50 AM
To: Kochmann Thomas
Subject: Re: RE: P=NP?
Thank you so much. Also, I have attached the .pdf file.
Martin Musatov
(C)2009 MeAmI.org. (R)(TM) Martin Musatov. NP=P. All Rights Reserved
in perpetuity. Applies to any attachments or derivatives of this
correspondence as allowable by law.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: "Kochmann Thomas" <***@dkfz-heidelberg.de>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:40:54
To: <***@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RE: P=NP?
Thank you very much,
I will have a deep look at it.
Thomas
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Musatov [mailto:***@gmail.com]
Sent: Fri 5/29/2009 9:40 AM
To: Kochmann Thomas
Subject: Re: P=NP?
http://MeAmI.org/blog/?p=83 [NP=P]
------Original Message------
From: Kochmann Thomas
To: ***@gmail.com
Subject: P=NP?
Sent: May 29, 2009 2:33 AM
Hi Martin,
I found your discussion under
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/16d3720a3cffc651/95d02fcda64a3a97?lnk=raot.
You claim to have a proof for NP = P?
I googled but didn't found your idea of the proof.
Why do you think that P = NP?
Best wishes
Thomas (Kochmann)
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry