Apr 10, 2016

of duck backs, water, and bridges bygone

> deterministically achievable in sub polynomial time

it's already been stated that 'sub polynomial' was a typo, the original sentence discussed subexp state of the art but i changed it to discuss my research instead and failed to remove the 'sub'

'deterministic' can also be appropriately called out as redundant when used with polynomial time because it is implied in the latter but i wanted to be explicit

> my intended inference

inference is defined as 'a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning'

this is a word structure i use in place of faith based assumptions: i think, i believe, etc; to establish a respect for evidence based conclusions

part of my research's aim is interested in a polynomial time algo for integer factorisation, but before i am to conclude that there is such a thing i require evidence, hence it being the intended inference of my research stead a direct inference

> 'it's hard for me it must be impossible for you'

this is what you will hear very often from many in the know if you tell them you have interest in a poly factorisation algo, even in spite of the problem being open

except in the case of one of the people that fanned all this interest

    Richard Karp: (Berkeley, unsure, P=/=NP) My intuitive belief is that P is unequal to NP,
    but the only supporting arguments I can offer are the failure of all efforts to place specific
    NP-complete problems in P by constructing polynomial-time algorithms.
    I believe that the traditional proof techniques will not suffice. Something entirely novel will
    be required.
    My hunch is that the problem will be solved by a young researcher who is not encumbered
    by too much conventional wisdom about how to attack the problem. (o)
:p

(o) http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/papers/poll.pdf