this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2026
130 points (95.1% liked)

Technology

89005 readers
3397 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
130
There's a new way to break RSA that's faster than anything we've seen before (arstechnica.com)
submitted 4 weeks ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

Factoring is in a category. Everything computable exists somewhere. We know factoring to be in NP.

What I was disagreeing with was the "at least" and "at most" characterization of NP completeness. It is a set, not a boundary. The actual diagram of the complexity zoo is much more complicated than concentric circles.

And for verifiability, I was not referring to it as an existential sort of thing. I was simply saying that I agreed with you in that particular facet, but it isn't sufficient to describe NP completeness. You also need NP-hardness.