>>11630495>any polynomial time algorithm will generally be faster than an exponential time one -- in that sense the (colloquial) term "computationally hard" is justifiedThats not true. I can think of a thousand examples where polynomial time algorithm (hell, even linear time) performs much much slower than exponential time algorithm. An algorithm can take a 10000 years to execute on 1 bit of input and be liner, while an exponential algorithm may take less than 1 second to execute on all sets of data humans can come up with. If you have an argument why the term computationally hard has ANYTHING to do with being hard to compute in real life, please go ahead.
> picking a random elementGood job pointing out another example of a word having nothing to do with its meaning in real life. How do you pick a random real number uniformly in the interval (0,1)? Can you pick one? I can prove you that whenever you do, you will always take numbers from a set of measure 0.
> much agrees with the intuition behind the wordWait are you actually retarded?
