Critique of Barbosa's "P != NP Proof"

Jackson Abascal,Shir Maimon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1711.07132

2017-11-20

Abstract:We review André Luiz Barbosa's paper "P != NP Proof," in which the classes P and NP are generalized and claimed to be proven separate. We highlight inherent ambiguities in Barbosa's definitions, and show that attempts to resolve this ambiguity lead to flaws in the proof of his main result.

Computational Complexity

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

On Czerwinski's "${\rm P} \neq {\rm NP}$ relative to a ${\rm P}$-complete oracle"

Michael C. Chavrimootoo,Tran Duy Anh Le,Michael P. Reidy,Eliot J. Smith

2023-12-08

Abstract:In this paper, we take a closer look at Czerwinski's "${\rm P}\neq{\rm NP}$ relative to a ${\rm P}$-complete oracle" [Cze23]. There are (uncountably) infinitely-many relativized worlds where ${\rm P}$ and ${\rm NP}$ differ, and it is well-known that for any ${\rm P}$-complete problem $A$, ${\rm P}^A \neq {\rm NP}^A \iff {\rm P}\neq {\rm NP}$. The paper defines two sets ${\rm D}_{\rm P}$ and ${\rm D}_{\rm NP}$ and builds the purported proof of their main theorem on the claim that an oracle Turing machine with ${\rm D}_{\rm NP}$ as its oracle and that accepts ${\rm D}_{\rm P}$ must make $\Theta(2^n)$ queries to the oracle. We invalidate the latter by proving that there is an oracle Turing machine with ${\rm D}_{\rm NP}$ as its oracle that accepts ${\rm D}_{\rm P}$ and yet only makes one query to the oracle. We thus conclude that Czerwinski's paper [Cze23] fails to establish that ${\rm P} \neq {\rm NP}$.

Computational Complexity
Computer-Aided Verification of P/NP Proofs: A Survey and Discussion

Stefan Rass,Max-Julian Jakobitsch,Stefan Haan,Moritz Hiebler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2024.3355540

IF: 3.9

2024-02-03

IEEE Access

Abstract:We survey a collection of proofs towards equality, inequality, or independence of the relation of P to NP. Since the problem has attracted much attention from experts, amateurs, and in-betweens, this work is intended as a pointer into directions to enable a "self-assessment" of ideas laid out by people interested in the problem. To this end, we identify the most popular approaches to proving equality, inequality, or independence. Since the latter category appears to be without any attempts to follow the necessary proof strategies, we devote a Section to an intuitive outline of how independence proofs would work. In the other cases of proving equality or inequality, known barriers like (affine) relativization, algebrization, and others are to be avoided. The most important and powerful technique available in this regard is a formalization of arguments in automated proof assistants. This allows an objective self-check of a proof before presenting it to the scientific community.

computer science, information systems,telecommunications,engineering, electrical & electronic
A Refutation of Guinea's "Understanding SAT is in P"

Jackson Abascal,Shir Maimon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1711.04412

2017-11-13

Abstract:In this work, we summarize and critique the paper "Understanding SAT is in P" by Alejandro Sánchez Guinea [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1504.00337" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.00337">arXiv:1504.00337</a>]. The paper claims to present a polynomial-time solution for the NP-complete language 3-SAT. We show that Guinea's algorithm is flawed and does not prove 3-SAT is in P.

Computational Complexity
On P Versus NP

Lev Gordeev

2024-02-15

Abstract:Consider a following NP-problem DOUBLE CLIQUE (abbr.: CLIQ$_{2}$): Given a natural number $k>2$ and a pair of two disjoint subgraphs of a fixed graph $G$ decide whether each subgraph in question contains a $k$-clique. I prove that CLIQ$_{2}$ can't be solved in polynomial time by a deterministic TM, which infers $\mathbf{P}\neq \mathbf{NP}$. This proof upgrades the well-known proof of polynomial unsolvability of the partial result with respect to analogous monotone problem CLIQUE (abbr.: CLIQ) as well as my previous presentation that used appropriate 3-value semantics. Note that problem CLIQ$_{2}$ is not monotone and appears more complex than just iterated CLIQ, as the required subgraphs are mutually dependent.

Computational Complexity
Constructibility, computational complexity and P versus NP

Arne Hole

2024-06-25

Abstract:A class of decision problems related to inconsistency proofs for formal theories is used to show that under a constructive interpretation of computational complexity classes, an assumption referred to as the MW thesis implies that one may explicitly construct decision problems in NP which are not algorithmically solvable. In particular, in this interpretation the MW thesis implies P $\neq$ NP. It is argued that MW is a naturally valid, yet also naturally unformalizable principle.

Computational Complexity,Logic in Computer Science
$P\not=NP$ relative to a $P$-complete oracle

Reiner Czerwinski

2023-04-02

Abstract:The $P$ versus $NP$ problem is still unsolved. But there are several oracles with $P$ unequal $NP$ relative to them. Here we will prove, that $P\not=NP$ relative to a $P$-complete oracle. In this paper, we use padding arguments as the proof method. The padding arguments are not bounded by a computable function. Such as we can use methods from computability theory to separate complexity classes.

Computational Complexity
On Lev Gordeev's "On P Versus NP"

David Narváez,Patrick Phillips

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.07166

2021-04-14

Computational Complexity

Abstract:In the paper "On P versus NP," Lev Gordeev attempts to extend the method of approximation, which successfully proved exponential lower bounds for monotone circuits, to the case of De Morgan Normal (DMN) circuits. As in Razborov's proof of exponential lower bounds for monotone circuits, Gordeev's work is focused on the NP-complete problem CLIQUE. If successful in proving exponential DMN circuit lower bounds for CLIQUE, Gordeev would prove that P $\neq$ NP. However, we show that Gordeev makes a crucial mistake in Lemma 12. This mistake comes from only approximating operations over positive circuit inputs. Furthermore, we argue that efforts to extend the method of approximation to DMN circuits will need to approximate negated inputs as well.
P not equal to NP

Daniel Cardona Delgado

2023-11-14

Abstract:This article finds the answer to the question: for any problem from which a non-deterministic algorithm can be derived which verifies whether an answer is correct or not in polynomial time (complexity class NP), is it possible to create an algorithm that finds the right answer to the problem in polynomial time (complexity class P)? For this purpose, this article shows a decision problem and analyzes it to demonstrate that this problem does not belong to the complexity class P, but it belongs to the class NP; doing so it will be proved that it exists at least one problem that belongs to class NP but not to class P, which means that this article will prove that not all NP problems are P.

Computational Complexity
A Brief Note on a Recent Claim About NP-Hard Problems and BQP

Michael C. Chavrimootoo

2024-04-25

Abstract:This short note outlines some of the issues in Czerwinski's paper [Cze23] claiming that NP-hard problems are not in BQP. We outline one major issue and two minor issues, and conclude that their paper does not establish what they claim it does.

Computational Complexity
Why the classes P and NP are not well-defined finitarily

Bhupinder Singh Anand

2024-01-15

Abstract:We distinguish finitarily between algorithmic verifiability, and algorithmic computability, to show that Goedel's 'formally' unprovable, but 'numeral-wise' provable, arithmetical proposition [(Ax)R(x)] can be finitarily evidenced as: algorithmically verifiable as 'always' true, but not algorithmically computable as 'always' true. Hence, though [R(x)] is algorithmically verifiable as a tautology, it is not algorithmically computable as a tautology by any Turing machine, whether deterministic or non-deterministic. By interpreting the PvNP problem arithmetically, rather than set-theoretically, we conclude that the clkasses P and NP are not well-defined finitarily since it immediately follows that SAT is neither in P nor in NP.

Logic
The PBR theorem seen from the eyes of a Bohmian

Aurélien Drezet

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1409.3478

2014-09-11

Abstract:The aim of this paper is to present an analysis of the new theorem by Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph (PBR) concerning ontic and epistemic hidden variables in quantum mechanics [Nature Phys. 8, 476 (2012)]. This is a kind of review and defense of my previous critical analysis done in the context of Bohmian mechanics. This is also the occasion for me to review some of the fundamental aspects of Bohmian theory rarely discussed in the literature. The paper is submitted for the issue PBR theorem and Beyond of IJQF (International Journal of Quantum Foundations).

Quantum Physics
Addendum to `On the nonreality of the PBR theorem': disproof by generic counterexample

Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet

2024-06-06

Abstract:The PBR theorem is widely seen as one of the most important no-go theorems in the foundations of quantum mechanics. Recently, in Found. Phys. 53(3): 64 (2023), it has been argued that there is no reality to the PBR theorem using a pair of bolts as a counterexample. In this addendum we expand on the argument: we disprove the PBR theorem by a generic counterexample, and we put the finger on the precise spot where Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph have made a tacit assumption that is false.

General Physics
Strength and limitations of Sherali-Adams and Nullstellensatz proof systems

Ilario Bonacina,Maria Luisa Bonet

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apal.2024.103538

IF: 0.776

2024-12-01

Annals of Pure and Applied Logic

Abstract:We compare the strength of the algebraic proof systems Sherali-Adams ( SA ) and Nullstellensatz ( NS ) with Frege-style proof systems. Unlike bounded-depth Frege, SA has polynomial-size proofs of the pigeonhole principle ( PHP ). A natural question is whether adding PHP to bounded-depth Frege is enough to simulate SA . We show that SA , with unary integer coefficients, lies strictly between tree-like depth-1 Frege+PHP and tree-like Resolution . We introduce a levelled version of PHP ( LPHP ) and we show that SA with integer coefficients lies strictly between tree-like depth-1 Frege+LPHP and Resolution . Analogous results are shown for NS using the bijective (i.e. onto and functional) pigeonhole principle and a levelled version of it.

mathematics, applied,logic
Proving that P is not equal to NP and that P is not equal to the intersection of NP and co-NP

R. A. Cohen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cs/0511085

2005-11-26

Abstract:The open question, P=NP?, was presented by Cook (1971). In this paper, a proof that P is not equal to NP is presented. In addition, it is shown that P is not equal to the intersection of NP and co-NP. Finally, the exact inclusion relationships between the classes P, NP and co-NP are presented.

Computational Complexity
BQP_p = PP for integer p > 2

Joseph Bebel,Henry Yuen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1106.0572

2011-06-22

Abstract:There's something really strange about quantum mechanics. It's not just that cats can be dead and alive at the same time, and that entanglement seems to violate the principle of locality; quantum mechanics seems to be what Aaronson calls "an island in theoryspace", because even slight perturbations to the theory of quantum mechanics seem to generate absurdities. In [Aar 04] and [Aar 05], he explores these perturbations and the corresponding absurdities in the context of computation. In particular, he shows that a quantum theory where the measurement probabilities are computed using p-norm instead of the standard 2-norm has the effect of blowing up the class BQP (the class of problems that can be efficiently solved on a quantum computer) to at least PP (the class of problems that can be solved in probabilistic polynomial time). He showed that PP \subseteq BQP_p \subseteq PSPACE for all constants p != 2, and that BQP_p = PP for even integers p > 2. Here, we show that this equality holds for all integers p > 2.

Quantum Physics,Computational Complexity
A note on recent criticisms to Birnbaum's theorem

Víctor Peña,James O. Berger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1711.08093

2017-11-22

Statistics Theory

Abstract:In this note, we provide critical commentary on two articles that cast doubt on the validity and implications of Birnbaum's theorem: Evans (2013) and Mayo (2014). In our view, the proof is correct and the consequences of the theorem are alive and well.
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Generalization of Proof Obligations in PDR

Tobias Seufert,Felix Winterer,Christoph Scholl,Karsten Scheibler,Tobias Paxian,Bernd Becker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/tcad.2022.3198260

IF: 2.9

2023-03-22

IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems

Abstract:In this article, we revisit the topic of generalizing proof obligations (POs) in bit-level property directed reachability (PDR). We provide a comprehensive study which: 1) determines the complexity of the problem; 2) thoroughly analyzes limitations of existing methods; 3) introduces approaches to PO generalization that have never been used in the context of PDR; 4) compares the strengths of different methods from a theoretical point of view; and 5) intensively evaluates the methods on various benchmarks from the hardware model checking as well as from AI planning.

engineering, electrical & electronic,computer science, interdisciplinary applications, hardware & architecture
Probabilistically Checkable Reconfiguration Proofs and Inapproximability of Reconfiguration Problems

Shuichi Hirahara,Naoto Ohsaka

2023-12-31

Abstract:Motivated by the inapproximability of reconfiguration problems, we present a new PCP-type characterization of PSPACE, which we call a probabilistically checkable reconfiguration proof (PCRP): Any PSPACE computation can be encoded into an exponentially long sequence of polynomially long proofs such that every adjacent pair of the proofs differs in at most one bit, and every proof can be probabilistically checked by reading a constant number of bits.

Computational Complexity
Explicit universal proof of P?NP

shuanhong wang,kibong nam,yoon kim

2004-01-01

Abstract:Let L be any B l -type Lie algebra with l≥ 2 over an algebraically closed field F of characteristic p>5 . Let V be an irreducible L -module corresponding to some points and let ρ : u(L)→ End F ( V ) be its corresponding representation. In this paper, in order to prove that the equality about the P versus NP problem out of the 7 Clay problems [Ja] [KSPY] does not hold, the Kernel m =K er ρ of ρ and the coset of u(L)/ m≅ End F (V) will be investigated. Furthermore, given a particular element x of u(L) , we consider the expression formulae of x in the cosets of u(L)/m . The expression gives rise to a nonhomogeneous system of linear equations, and this system has an algorithm by the Cramer's formula. We consider a counting problem asking whether a given particular element x of u(L) belongs to a coset of the form ϕ ( S″ i )+ m (see Theorem 5.1) and how many coefficients are there in e ∈ m modulo having their absolute values equal to v(x) .
Report on article: P=NP Linear programming formulation of the Traveling Salesman Problem

Radoslaw Hofman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cs/0610125

2006-11-02

Abstract:This article presents counter examples for three articles claiming that P=NP. Articles for which it applies are: Moustapha Diaby "P = NP: Linear programming formulation of the traveling salesman problem" and "Equality of complexity classes P and NP: Linear programming formulation of the quadratic assignment problem", and also Sergey Gubin "A Polynomial Time Algorithm for The Traveling Salesman Problem"

Computational Complexity,Discrete Mathematics,Data Structures and Algorithms

Critique of Barbosa's "P != NP Proof"

On Czerwinski's "${\rm P} \neq {\rm NP}$ relative to a ${\rm P}$-complete oracle"

Computer-Aided Verification of P/NP Proofs: A Survey and Discussion

A Refutation of Guinea's "Understanding SAT is in P"

On P Versus NP

Constructibility, computational complexity and P versus NP

$P\not=NP$ relative to a $P$-complete oracle

On Lev Gordeev's "On P Versus NP"

P not equal to NP

A Brief Note on a Recent Claim About NP-Hard Problems and BQP

Why the classes P and NP are not well-defined finitarily

The PBR theorem seen from the eyes of a Bohmian

Addendum to `On the nonreality of the PBR theorem': disproof by generic counterexample

Strength and limitations of Sherali-Adams and Nullstellensatz proof systems

Proving that P is not equal to NP and that P is not equal to the intersection of NP and co-NP

BQP_p = PP for integer p > 2

A note on recent criticisms to Birnbaum's theorem

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Generalization of Proof Obligations in PDR

Probabilistically Checkable Reconfiguration Proofs and Inapproximability of Reconfiguration Problems

Explicit universal proof of P?NP

Report on article: P=NP Linear programming formulation of the Traveling Salesman Problem