Re: GUT and P=NP

[m5@vail.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)]

James A. Donald writes:
 > Existing physical theories show that Super Turing machines are
 > possible in principle though very difficult to build in practice.

That's the understatement of the year.

 > Such machines will probably not be able to solve NP complete
 > problems though they will be able to solve some NP problems
 > such as factoring.

Huh?

 > Since such machines do not operate algorithmically

This statement is exactly wrong.  Such machines *define* a class of
algorithms.

 > they have
 > no relevance to the question of whether P=NP, because this
 > question is a question about *algorithms*.

And this one.

| GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com>       |
| TAKE TWA TO CAIRO.          ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX:        |
|     (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |