However, this method requires a specific finite obstruction set to work, and the theorem does not provide one. The theorem proves that such a finite obstruction set exists, and therefore the problem is polynomial because of the above algorithm. However, the algorithm can be used in practice only if such a finite obstruction set is provided. As a result, the theorem proves that the problem can be solved in polynomial time, but does not provide a concrete polynomial-time algorithm for solving it. Such proofs of polynomiality are non-constructive: they prove polynomiality of problems without providing an explicit polynomial-time algorithm.[14] In many specific cases, checking whether a graph is in a given minor-closed family can be done more efficiently: for example, checking whether a graph is planar can be done in linear time.
The era of cryptography is over, chud (maybe)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertson%E2%80%93Seymour_theorem
- 20
- 43
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Snapshots:
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
ghostarchive.org (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes, snappy. The honourable mujāhidīn will have an hard time communicating without being eavesdropped by Uncle Sam
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context