Thread 107163414

Which of the Clay Millennium Problems if solved will bring about AGI?

idk man i'm just here for the video game benchmarks

you don't need to solve any of them for AGI

>>107163414 (OP)
5

>>107163414 (OP)
Proofs aren't /g/. They don't tend to have practical applications.

google has solved navier-stokes
should be announced within a few months

>>107163414 (OP)
If P = NP then that would be the most substantial proof toward the development of AGI

>>107164053
No but they made an important contribution toward the solution

>>107163414 (OP)
Isn't Poincaré conjecture already solved?

>>107164087
My friend says he has proven P=NP

>>107164087
>the most substantial
and by substantial, he means it would have no bearing at all

>>107163414 (OP)
A constructive proof that P = NP would be revolutionary in the computer science world, especially for cryptography. Public key cryptosystems like HTTPS and OpenPGP would become crackable overnight.

A proof that P != NP would just be like "oh cool, we already thought that but it's nice to have confirmation". Wouldn't change anything really.

>>107164745
Not necessarily, argument ala Knuth. The big oh constant might be so incredibly huge that it has no bearing on reality.

>>107164745
There's Problem Space above NP.

>>107164823
>The big oh constant
The absolute state of /g/ in 2025. Big O notation ignores constant multipliers, O(2x) is exact same set as O(x).

You are correct that a constructive proof that P = NP would not necessarily lead to NP-complete problems being solvable. The polynomial may have such a high degree that it is practically unfeasible.