Ken Kirksey says:
I was reading Hawking's _Black Holes & Baby Universes_ and an interesting question struck me: If a Grand Unified Theory exists, would it not prove P=NP to be true?
No.
.pm
Ok Perry, I am not going to let you off that easily. Could you elucidate why you feel that such a GUT would not solve this problem even in principle? If a GUT could answer definitively whether there were a many-worls interpretation this would definately address at least peripheral aspects of the P=NP problem. It would also, necessarily, describe some limitations on computations and problem complexity. When one considers that there is no clear definition or proof of the exact solutions methods to prove P=NP it seems premature to posit such a definate answer. While it might not be true that it would solve the problem in toto it may be true that a clarification of the boundary conditions might make the solution easier by reducing the number of choices of methodology one might look at. I am interested on why you feel a GUT would have no effect, at least, on the boundary conditions of the problem? Take care.