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 computational-complexity
Search options not deleted
user 49830
This is a branch that includes: computational complexity theory; complexity classes, NP-completeness and other completeness concepts; oracle analogues of complexity classes; complexity-theoretic computational models; regular languages; context-free languages; Komolgorov Complexity and so on.
2
votes
1
answer
445
views
Why can't there be a problem both in P and NPC [closed]
In this illustration, P and NPC are two disjoint set.
We know that NPC is non-empty. If P $\cap$ NPC $=\varnothing$, then there are elements in NP which are not in P. Doesn't this imply that P $\neq …
- 3,830