At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
This problem has not been solved yet. Anyway most computer scientists believe they are not equal.
It is not. Did you mean the NP problem for algorithms such as GA
Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.
i know this is a subjective answer, but I was curious if anyone had their own opinion.
"In a 2002 poll of 100 researchers, 61 believed the answer to be no, 9 believed the answer is yes, and 22 were unsure; 8 believed the question may be independent of the currently accepted axioms and so impossible to prove or disprove."
I'll have to do some research, I'm fairly certain the scope of this problem is well beyond me xD
am not an expert in the field, but i think the answer its no. the key is in the np-complete problems, but its hard to believe someone found an algorithm that runs in polinomial for SAT for example
This is one of the great unresolved questions in theoretical computer science, and stands up there with the Riemann hypothesis and similar challenges as a mathematical challenge so profound that no one knows the best way to approach it yet.
People's "subjective" opinions on the matter are of historical and social interest only.
It may be (though it is unlikely) that the question of whether P=NP is independent of the currently accepted axioms of set theory (ZF), and thus there is no way to prove or disprove it within that framework. But as a proposition about computations it is still either true or false.