Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1003.5602

Does resolving PvNP require a paradigm shift?

Bhupinder Singh Anand
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

I shall argue that a resolution of the PvNP problem requires building an iff bridge between the domain of provability and that of computability. The former concerns how a human intelligence decides the truth of number-theoretic relations, and is formalised by the first-order Peano Arithmetic PA following Dededekind's axiomatisation of Peano's Postulates. The latter concerns how a human intelligence computes the values of number-theoretic functions, and is formalised by the operations of a Turing Machine following Turing's analysis of computable functions. I shall show that such a bridge requires objective definitions of both an `algorithmic' interpretation of PA, and an `instantiational' interpretation of PA. I shall show that both interpretations are implicit in the definition of the subjectively defined `standard' interpretation of PA. However the existence of, and distinction between, the two objectively definable interpretations---and the fact that the former is sound whilst the latter is not---is obscured by the extraneous presumption under the `standard' interpretation of PA that Aristotle's particularisation must hold over the structure N of the natural numbers. I shall argue that recognising the falseness of this belief awaits a paradigm shift in our perception of the application of Tarski's analysis (of the concept of truth in the languages of the deductive sciences) to the `standard' interpretation of PA. I shall then show that an arithmetical formula [F] is PA-provable if, and only if, [F] interprets as true under an algorithmic interpretation of PA. I shall finally show how it then follows from Goedel's construction of a formally `undecidable' arithmetical proposition that there is a Halting-type PA formula which---by Tarski's definitions---is algorithmically verifiable as true, but not algorithmically computable as true, under a sound interpretation of PA.

Explore related subjects

math.GM

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Bhupinder Singh Anand. 2010-03-29. Does resolving PvNP require a paradigm shift?. https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5602

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Average Chord Lengths in a Triangle

Let $P$ be a point inside a triangle $T$. We consider the average length of the chords of $T$ through $P$, where the direction of the chord is chosen uniformly. An elementary formula is obtained in terms of the distances from $P$ to the sides and vertices of the triangle. Several classical triangle centers give especially simple specializations. For example, if $I$ is the incenter, then \[ M_T(I)=\frac{2r}{\pi} \log\left(\cot\frac A4\cot\frac B4\cot\frac C4\right). \] Our main result is the sharp inequality \[ M_T(P)\le \frac{p}{\pi\sqrt3}\log(2+\sqrt3), \] valid simultaneously for every triangle of perimeter $p$ and every interior point $P$. Thus, among all such pairs $(T,P)$, the largest possible average chord length occurs only when $T$ is equilateral and $P$ is its center. The proof is an elementary symmetrization argument. We close with brief remarks relating the problem to the radial center of a convex body, the electrostatic potential center of a triangle, and dual quermassintegrals.

math.GM↗
arXiv2026

A Proof of Liu's Conjecture on the Fundamental Triangle Inequality

Let $a,b,c$ be the side lengths of a triangle, and let $R$ and $r$ denote its circumradius and inradius, respectively. We prove a conjecture of Liu stating that \[\sum_{\mathrm{cyc}} \left(\frac{a(b+c-a)}{bc}\right)^k \geq 2+\left(\frac{2r}{R}\right)^k,~~k>1, \] with the reverse inequality for $0<k<1$. The proof reduces the problem to three positive variables with fixed sum and product. We also determine the equality cases.

math.GM↗