Talk:â™¯P
WikiProject Mathematics  (Rated Startclass, Lowpriority)  


WikiProject Computer science  (Rated Startclass, Midimportance)  


It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool or Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. 
Definition
The definition is unclear. In particular, what is x in the following
"compute ƒ(x)," where ƒ is the number of accepting paths of an NP machine
is that the Turing machine? If it is, it should also be explained that for an NP problem there exists many accepting Turing machines with different numbers of accepting paths. Mikolasj ( talk) 10:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Change
The following was changed:
"a problem is in #P if there is a nondeterministic, polynomialtime Turing machine that, for each instance I of the problem, has a number of accepting computations that is exactly equal to the number of distinct solutions for instance I.
This is incorrect. A regular NP machine for, say SAT may have many accepting paths, "exactly equal to the number of distinct solutions". A #P Turing machine is a FUNCTIONAL machine. Its a machine that outputs the value of a function f:{0,1}* > Z such that f(x) = # of solutions.
 No. You seem to be confusing #P with the class of counting problems in FP. Dricherby ( talk) 16:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
NPhardness of problems in #P
The sentence "Therefore, the #P problem corresponding to any NPComplete problem must be NPHard" is incorrect. We cannot compare apples and oranges: a problem in #P is a counting problem, whereas any NPhard problem is a decision problem. The only way to relate them is by oracles, what is done in Toda's theorem. Miki Hermann 16:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 Likewise, "It is not known whether, conversely, #P is in the polynomial hierarchy", since PH is a hierarchy of decision problems. So I deleted that sentence, too. Dricherby ( talk) 16:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 A problem does not have to be in NP to be NPhard. For example, SAT may be reduced to #SAT, trivially. We can in fact compare function and decision problems.
Kufat (
talk) 23:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 Yes, Kufat is right here, the statement in question is completely accurate. The statement that Dricherby removed was incorrect, however. Dcoetzee 21:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
#PSpace = #P
The problem of counting all valid quantifications of a boolean formula is the canonical member of #PSpace. It turns out that the answer is equal to the number of satisfying assignments of the boolean formula, so #P=#PSpace. Probably, the equivalence is unsurprising, but is uncommon knowledge. The equivalence has been titled #P=#Q in a 2002 paper. 24.33.70.144 ( talk) 21:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Daniel Pehoushek