Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tim Converse's avatar

I thought that this was an interesting and provocative essay, but there's one link in the argument that doesn't quite go through, as far as I can tell.

You want to identify a given complexity class with a restricted class of universal machines - one which monitors the resources consumed and cuts off the computation when the resource limit is reached.

So let's say that you are commissioned to make such a machine for the class P (or NP, whichever you want). Then I give you a.problem instance, and ask you to run it within a polynomial-time constraint.

So .... how many steps does your polynomial-time machine run it for before stopping it?

The difficulty is that class P is defined by "problems", which are really sets of problem instances, and the members of P are in that class because of the asymptotic behavior as their problem instances get larger. A given universal computer when confronted with a *single* problem instance, and asked to run it, has no way to know what "problem" (i.e. set of problem instances) it belongs to. So I think you may have difficulty defining a "polynomial-time" machine that cuts off computation after a polynomial number of steps.

Let me know if I am missing something.

Expand full comment
Ante Škugor's avatar

I didn't quite understand this sentence: "For virtually any class we might define there will be a way of handicapping the universal computer such that it is still able to solve all of the problems in the class while at the same time not breaking the class specific resource constraint.". This seems to be asserting that any class of problems that is complete can be solved by a universal computer, but as far as I know it's still not known whether, for example, NP problems can be solved. From what you wrote earlier in the article I assume you agree with that which means I am misunderstanding something.

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts