Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • 2
    +1 someone who explains understandably. instead of saying a bunch of references to keywords I hardly understand. Commented Mar 23, 2013 at 14:13
  • 23
    The first sentence is back-to-front: you need to reduce the known NP-complete problem to your own problem. This shows that your problem is at least as hard as the known NP-complete problem. Part (b) is also incorrect: if you have found the reduction then you already know that your problem is NP-hard; the only question is whether it is in NP at all (some problems, like the Halting Problem, are not). Iff it is NP-hard and in NP, then it is NP-complete (i.e. "NP-complete" is more specific than "NP-hard"). Commented May 15, 2013 at 22:46
  • 1
    I wouldn't say a) leads to a contradiction, since we don't know that P != NP. Commented Jan 10, 2014 at 9:41