Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with traveling-salesman-problem
Search options answers only
not deleted
user 3106
2
votes
What would $\mathcal{P} \neq \mathcal{NP}$ tell us about some non-constructive proofs?
I think you may need to formulate your question more precisely.
Consider the following "nonconstructive proof": If you do blah-blah-blah and the result is 1 then YES, but if the result is 0 then NO, …
- 82.6k
2
votes
Greedy euclidean tour expansion - a case of unexpected hanging?
There are many different ways of approaching the unexpected hanging paradox, some of which I describe in my paper on the subject, but I agree with Steven Landsburg that there is no useful sense in whi …
- 82.6k
11
votes
Is there a lower bound for the computational complexity of the traveling salesman problem?
There is a (nearly) trivial linear-time lower bound, because it takes linear time to read in the input. (I say this is nearly trivial because you do have to argue that it is necessary to examine at l …
- 82.6k