Search

This paper is on a brief interpretation of class P and NP in infinite Hamming cube consisting all the instances of any language in P or NP as well as all the instances of a Turing machine’s tape per configuration. It is shown that P and NP are more comparable when defined in Hamming space; while, this results P = NP.

This paper is on a brief interpretation of class P and NP in infinite Hamming cube consisting all the instances of any language in P or NP as well as all the instances of a Turing machine’s tape per configuration. It is shown that P and NP are more comparablewhen defined in Hamming space; while, this results P = NP.

This paper is on a brief interpretation of class P and NP in infinite Hamming cube consisting all the instances of any language in P or NP as well as all the instances of a Turing machine’s tape per configuration. It is shown that P and NP are more comparable when defined in Hamming space; while, this results P = NP.

This paper is on a brief interpretation of class P and NP in Hamming space. It is shown that P and NP are more comparablewhen defined in Hamming space; while, this results P = NP.

This paper is on a brief interpretation of class P and NP in Hamming space. It is shown that P and NP are more comparable when defined in Hamming space; while, this results P = NP.

This paper is on a brief interpretation of class P and NP in infinite Hamming cube consisting all the instances of any language in P or NP as well as all the instances of a Turing machine’s tape per configuration. It is shown that P and NP are more comparable when defined in Hamming space; while, this results P = NP.

This paper is on a brief interpretation of class P and NP in infinite Hamming cube consisting all the instances of any language in P or NP as well as all the instances of a Turing machine’s tape per configuration. It is shown that P and NP are more comparablewhen defined in Hamming space; while, this results P = NP.

This paper is on a brief interpretation of class P and NP in infinite Hamming cube consisting all the instances of any language in P or NP as well as all the instances of a Turing machine’s tape per configuration. It is shown that P and NP are more comparable when defined in Hamming space; while, this results P = NP.

This paper is on a brief interpretation of class P and NP in infinite Hamming cube consisting all the instances of any language in P or NP as well as all the instances of a Turing machine’s tape per configuration. It is shown that P and NP are more comparable when defined in Hamming space; while, this results P = NP.

This paper is on a brief interpretation of class P and NP in Hamming space. It is shown that P and NP are more comparablewhen defined in Hamming space; while, this results P = NP.

This paper is on a brief interpretation of class P and NP in Hamming space. It is shown that P and NP are more comparablewhen defined in Hamming space; while, this results P = NP.

This paper is on a brief interpretation of class P and NP as bounds over the number of jumps between strings in an infinite Hamming cube consisting all the instances of any language in P or NP as well as all the instances of a Turing machine’s tape per configuration. It is shown that P and NP are more comparable when defined in Hamming space respecting its cubic structure; while, this results P = NP.