摘要
In the current paper, I present probably the simplest possible abstract formal proof that P ≠ NP, and NP = EXPTIME, in the context of the standard mathematical set theory of computational complexity and deterministic Turing machines. My previous publications about the solution of the P vs. NP with the same result NP = EXPTIME, to be fully correct and understandable need the Lemma 4.1 and its proof of the current paper. The arguments of the current paper in order to prove NP = EXPTME are even simpler than in my previous publications. The strategy to solve the P vs. NP problem in the current paper (and in my previous publications) is by starting with an EXPTIME-complete language (problem) and proving that it has a re-formulation as an NP-class language, thus NP = EXPTIME. The main reason that the scientific community has missed so far such a simple proof, is because of two factors 1) It has been tried extensively but in vain to simplify the solutions of NP-complete problems from exponential time algorithms to polynomial time algorithms (which would be a good strategy only if P = NP) 2) It is believed that the complexity class NP is strictly a subclass to the complexity class EXPTIME (in spite the fact that any known solution to any of the NP-complete problems is not less than exponential). The simplicity of the current solution would have been missed if 2) was to be believed true. So far the majority of the relevant scientific community has considered this famous problem not yet solved. The present results definitely solve the 3rd Clay Millennium Problem about P versus NP in a simple, abstract and transparent way that the general scientific community, but also the experts of the area, can follow, understand and therefore become able to accept.
In the current paper, I present probably the simplest possible abstract formal proof that P ≠ NP, and NP = EXPTIME, in the context of the standard mathematical set theory of computational complexity and deterministic Turing machines. My previous publications about the solution of the P vs. NP with the same result NP = EXPTIME, to be fully correct and understandable need the Lemma 4.1 and its proof of the current paper. The arguments of the current paper in order to prove NP = EXPTME are even simpler than in my previous publications. The strategy to solve the P vs. NP problem in the current paper (and in my previous publications) is by starting with an EXPTIME-complete language (problem) and proving that it has a re-formulation as an NP-class language, thus NP = EXPTIME. The main reason that the scientific community has missed so far such a simple proof, is because of two factors 1) It has been tried extensively but in vain to simplify the solutions of NP-complete problems from exponential time algorithms to polynomial time algorithms (which would be a good strategy only if P = NP) 2) It is believed that the complexity class NP is strictly a subclass to the complexity class EXPTIME (in spite the fact that any known solution to any of the NP-complete problems is not less than exponential). The simplicity of the current solution would have been missed if 2) was to be believed true. So far the majority of the relevant scientific community has considered this famous problem not yet solved. The present results definitely solve the 3rd Clay Millennium Problem about P versus NP in a simple, abstract and transparent way that the general scientific community, but also the experts of the area, can follow, understand and therefore become able to accept.
