Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleJohn
Somehow I knew this thread was going to get around to Computation Complexity Theory. Alan Turing committed suicide by eating a poison apple. Alan came up with the Turing Machine and the Turing Test. He is one of my hero's.
What about the halting problem for linearly bounded automata (Turing machine)? NP == P?

The Logician and Nazi codebreaker Alan Turing, yes prosecuted by the English legislatures for his nature as written and a story told beautifully by Andrew Hodges biography: Alan Turing: The Enigma.
ComputerLiterate I am not and anyone working in the field knows more than me.
But there are InputOutput functions and Goedels Theorems of Incompleteness applied to the polynomial time of the deterministic Turing Machine class P and the nondeterministic Turing Machine class NP.
The Quantum Computer can put the string into a multiple interaction field for the nonsequential order of the string.
Does not the human brain behave like this as a parallel processor of the data?
Reducing the polynomial timeinterval makes faster and more capacitative memories; but eliminating the timeinterval into a quantum NOW can open the Memory of the Universe as its own Turing Machine  but yet it is P and perhaps NPcomplete in halting.
The fast algorithm in polynomial time  can the undecidability of the Halting problem be modeled on the beginnings of the univers?
It was an infinite computer loop after all, just like Turing's Proof.
So the solution of P=NP relates to the cosmogenesis. Some logician will one day use the physical birth of spacetime to map the Halting Problems OneToOne.
P=NP before there was time and space and the algorithms for the computers of the future emerged from the logistics of themselves.
After the spacetime exists however, the P=Not NP because thing has turned to require the strings themselves to Be  in the simpleton's word of the relative ignorance.
AA