We know that P=NP implies NP=coNP. Does the reverse implication hold? Does NP equal coNP imply that P equals NP? If not why not?

I googled but didn't find the answer.


The case that $P \subset NP = coNP$ is possible. The reason why $P = NP$ implies $NP = coNP$ is that $P$ is closed under complement, and so if $P = NP$, $NP$ must be closed under complement as well.

A class being closed under complement doesn't necessarily imply anything about its deterministic counterpart. For example, we know that $NL$ is closed under complement, but don't know whether $L = NL$.

| cite | improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.