Can someone help me with (b) and (c). I really don't know how to solve it, whether using substitution or recurrence tree method. Master theorem doesn't seem to work here either. Thanks.
Why is NP-hard unequal to NP-complete?
My informal understanding of definitions being used:
NP - all problems that can be verified in polynomial time
NP-complete - all problems that are NP and NP-hard
NP-hard - at least as hard as the hardest problem in NP
Decision Problem - A problem that asks a question with regards to an input and outputs a bool value
Confusion:
The problem with unknown solution of P vs NP arises from the fact that we cannot prove or disprove all problems in NP can be solved in polynomial time. It feels like a similar question arises from NP-complete vs NP-hard. How do we know all problems in NP-hard cannot be verified in polynomial time and thus result in NP-hard=NP-complete?
Here is my line of reasoning
From online research the distinction seems that this has something to do with decision problems (a concept I'm entirely new to but seem simple enough). I think this means that problems in NP have complementary decision problems that ask if an input is the solution to the problem. Let's say the problem is to find an optimal solution. I believe the complementary decision problem to be "is the given input the optimal solution?"and I believe that if this decision problem is verifiable in polynomial time then the problem is NP-complete (or in NP). So this means that NP-hard problems that aren't NP-complete problems are those that either have no decision problem (which I believe is never true since any brute force solution can answer this) or a problem is NP-hard and not NP-complete if it has a decision problem that's not verifiable in polynomial time. If it is the latter then it feels like we have the same problem from P vs NP. That is, how do we confirm all decision problems in NP-hard do not have polynomial time solutions?
Sorry if the above phrasing is weird. I will try and clarify any confusion in my question.
notes
I am interested in both an intuitive explanation and a formal explanation (a proof if it's a complicated answer). The formal explanation can certainly be a link to an academic paper. I don't want anyone to invest a significant amount of time into an overly complicated proof that may be beyond the scope of my understanding (I've found complexity theory to become very quickly... complex).
If it helps for the sake of explanation I have done work on the traveling salesman problem and I am currently working on a paper for the nurse scheduling problem (I believe these are NP-hard problems).
NP-Hard includes all problems whose solutions can be used to derive solutions to problems in NP with polynomial overhead.
This includes lots of problems that aren't in NP. For instance, the halting problem - an undecidable problem - is NP-Hard, because any problem in NP can be reduced to it in polynomial time:
Reduce any problem in NP to an instance of the NP-Complete problem 3-SAT
Construct in polynomial time a TM which checks all assignments and halts iff a satisfying assignment is found.
Use a solution to the halting problem to tell whether the TM halts.
If it halts, accept; otherwise, reject.
Can someone give me an example of an undecidable problem that is not NP-hard?
I'm unable to understand the difference between the two.
Thanks very much!
An NP-hard problem is one such that every problem in NP can be reduced to it. In fact, it is "at least as hard as" the problems in NP class. For example, TSP (Traveling Sales Person) is NP-hard. However, undecidable is a problem for which there is no algorithm that always decide correctly. For example, the question of whether a program halts at some point or not is undecidable. In fact, you may not have an algorithm that can answer this question correctly for all programs in the world. (This can be proved)
So, in brief, an undecidable problem is logically hard; no matter how strong your computers or algorithms are, they cannot be solved. But, NP-hard problems have algorithms to be solved with but those algorithms are not polynomial in time.
Am a bit confused about the relationship between undecidable problems and NP hard problems. Whether NP hard problems are a subset of undecidable problems, or are they just the same and equal, or is it that they are not comparable?
For me, I have been arguing with my friends that undecidable problems are a superset to the NP hard problems. There would exist some problems that are not in NP hard but are undecidable. But i am finding this argument to be weak and am confused a bit. Are there NP-complete problems that are undecidable.? is there any problem in NP hard which is decidable.??
Some discussion would be of great help! Thanks!
Undecidable = unsolvable for some inputs. No matter how much (finite) time you give your algorithm, it will always be wrong on some input.
NP-hard ~= super-polynomial running time (assuming P != NP). That's hand-wavy, but basically NP-hard means it is at least as hard as the hardest problem in NP.
There are certainly problems that are NP-hard which are not undecidable (= are decidable). Any NP-complete problem would be one of them, say SAT.
Are there undecidable problems which are not NP-hard? I don't think so, but it isn't easy to rule it out - I don't see an obvious argument that there must be a reduction from SAT to all possible undecidable problems. There could be some weird undecidable problems which aren't very useful. But the standard undecidable problems (the halting problem, say) are NP-hard.
An NP-hard is a problem that is at least as hard as any NP-complete problem.
Therefore an undecidable problem can be NP-hard. A problem is NP-hard if an oracle for it would make solving NP-complete problems easy (i.e. solvable in polynomial time). We can imagine an undecidable problem such that, given an oracle for it, NP-complete problems would be easy to solve. For example, obviously every oracle that solves the halting problem can also solve an NP-complete problem, so every Turing-complete problem is also NP-hard in the sense that a (fast) oracle for it would make solving NP-complete problems a breeze.
Therefore Turing-complete undecidable problems are a subset of NP-hard problems.
Undecidable problem e.g. Turing Halting Problem is NP-Hard only.
<---------NP Hard------>
|------------|-------------||-------------|------------|--------> Computational Difficulty
|<----P--->|
|<----------NP---------->|
|<-----------Exponential----------->|
|<---------------R (Finite Time)---------------->|
In this diagram, that small pipe shows overlapping of NP and NP-Hard and which shows NP-Completeness, i.e. set of those problems which are NP as well as NP-Hard.
Undecidable problems are NP Hard problems which do not have solution and which are not in NP.
Would it be an polynomial time algorithm to a specific NP-complete problem, or just abstract reasonings that demonstrate solutions to NP-complete problems exist?
It seems that the a specific algoithm is much more helpful. With it, all we'll have to do to polynomially solve an NP problem is to convert it into the specific NP-complete problem for which the proof has a solution, and we are done.
P = NP: "The 3SAT problem is a classic NP complete problem. In this proof, we demonstrate an algorithm to solve it that has an asymptotic bound of (n^99 log log n). First we ..."
P != NP: "Assume there was a polynomial algorithm for the 3SAT problem. This would imply that .... which by ..... implies we can do .... and then ... and then ... which is impossible. This was all predicated on a polynomial time algorithm for 3SAT. Thus P != NP."
UPDATE: Perhaps something like this paper (for P != NP).
UPDATE 2: Here's a video of Michael Sipser sketching out a proof for P != NP
Call me pessimistic, but it will be like this:
...
∴, P ≠ NP
QED
There are some meta-results about what a P=NP or P≠NP proof can not look like. The details are quite technical, but it is known that the proof cannot be
relativizing, which kind of means that the proof must make use of the exact definition of Turing machine used, because with some modifications ("oracles", like very powerful CISC instructions added to the instruction set) P=NP, and with some other modifications, P≠NP. See also this blog post for a nice explanation of relativization.
natural, a property of several classic circuit complexity proofs,
or algebrizing, a generalization of relativizing.
It could take the form of demonstrating that assuming P ≠ NP leads to a contradiction.
It might not be connected to P and NP in a straightforward way... Many theorems now are based on P!=NP, so proving one assumed fact to be untrue would make a big difference. Even proving something like constant ratio approximation for TS should be enough IIRC. I think, existence of NPI (GI) and other sets is also based on P!=NP, so making any of them equal to P or NP might change the situation completely.
IMHO everything happens now on a very abstract level. If someone proves anything about P=/!=NP, it doesn't have to mention any of those sets or even a specific problem.
Probably it would be in the form of a reduction from an NP problem to a P problem. See the Wikipedia page on reductions.
OR
Like this proof proposed by Vinay Deolalikar.
The most straightforward way is to prove that there is a polynomial time solution to the problems in the class NP-complete. These are problems that are in NP and are reducable to one of the known np problem. That means you could give a faster algorithm to prove the original problem posed by Stephen Cook or many others which have also been shown to be NP-Complete. See Richard Karp's seminal paper and this book for more interesting problems. It has been shown that if you solve one of these problems the entire complexity class collapses. edit: I have to add that i was talking to my friend who is studying quantum computation. Although I had no clue what it means, he said that a certain proof/experiment? in the quantum world could make the entire complexity class, i mean the whole thing, moot. If anyone here knows more about this, please reply.
There have also been numerous attempts to the problem without giving a formal algorithm. You could try to count the set. Theres the Robert/Seymore proof. People have also tried to solve it using the tried and tested diagonlization proof(also used to show that there are problems that you can never solve). Razborov also showed that if there are certain one-way functions then any proof cannot give a resolution. That means that new techniques will be required in order to solve this question.
Its been 38 years since the original paper has been published and there still is no sign of a proof. Not only that but lot of problems that mathematicians had been posing before the notion of complexity classes came in has been shown to be NP. Therefor many mathematicians and computer scientists believe that some of the problems are so fundamental that a new kind of maths may be needed to solve the problem. You have to keep in mind that the best minds human race has to offer have tackled this problem without any success. I think it should be at least decades before somebody cracks the puzzle. But even if there is a polynomial time solution the constants or the exponent could be so large that it would be useless in our problems.
There is an excellent survey available which should answer most of your questions: http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/pnp.pdf.
Certainly a descriptive proof is the most useful, but there are other categories of proof: it is possible, for example, to provide 'existence proofs' that demonstrate that it is possible to find an answer without finding (or, sometimes, even suggesting how to find) that answer.
Set N equal to the multiplicative identity. Then NP = P. QED. ;-)
It would likely look almost precisely like one of these
Good question; it could take either form. Obviously, the specific algorithm would be more helpful, yes, but there's no determining that that would be the way that a theoretical P=NP proof would occur. Given that the nature of NP-complete problems and how common they are, it would seem that more effort has been put into solving those problems than has been put into solving the theoretical reasoning side of the equation, but that's just supposition.
Any nonconstructive proof that P=NP really is not. It would imply that the following explicit 3-SAT algorithm runs in polynomial time:
Enumerate all programs. On round i, run all programs numbered
less than i for one step. If
a program terminates with a
satisfying input to the formula, return true. If a program
terminates with a formal proof that
no such input exists, return
false.
If P=NP, then there exists a program which runs in O(poly(N)) and outputs a satisfying input to the formula, if such a formula exists.
If P=coNP, there exists a program which runs in O(poly(N)) and outputs a formal proof that no formula exists, if no formula exists.
If P=NP, then since P is closed under complement NP=coNP. So, there exists a program which runs in O(poly(N)) and does both. That program is the k'th program in the enumeration. k is O(1)! Since it runs in O(poly(N)) our brute force simulation only requires
k*O(poly(N))+O(poly(N))^2
rounds once it reaches the program in question. As such, the brute force simulation runs in polynomial time!
(Note that k is exponential in the size of the program; this approach is not really feasible, but it suggests that it would be hard to do a nonconstructive proof that P=NP, even if it were the case.)
An interesting read that is somewhat related to this
To some extent, the form such a proof needs to have depends on your philosophical point of view (= the axioms you deem to be true) - e.g., as a contructivist you would demand the construction of an actual algorithm that requires polynomial time to solve an NP-complete problem. This could be done by using reduction, but not with an indirect proof. Anyhow, it really seems to be very unlikely :)
The proof would deduce a contradiction from to the assumption that at least one element (problem) of NP isn't also an element of P.