# Is following observation on Ladner's theorem correct?

Suppose $NP\subseteq DTIME[n^{f(n)}]$ where $f(n)$ is any function satisfying $\omega(1)$ then is it true $P=NP$ holds?

Ladner's theorem states infinite time hierarchy between $P$ and $NP$. That is there are $NP$ problems in $DTIME[n^{g(n)}]$ for any $g(n)$ such that $n^c\leq n^{g(n)}\leq 2^{n^{1/c}}$ at some fixed $c\geq1$. If $NP\subseteq DTIME[n^{f(n)}]$ where $f(n)$ is any function satisfying $\omega(1)$ then for every such $g(n)$ we can find a $f(n)\ll g(n)$ and so Ladner's theorem is violated and so $P=NP$ has to hold.

And so if $P\neq NP$ there is $g(n)$ with $n^c\leq n^{g(n)}\leq 2^{n^{1/c}}$ such that $NP\subsetneq DTIME[n^{g(n)}]$ and $NP\subseteq DTIME[n^{f(n)}]$ where $f(n)$ is any function satisfying $\omega(1)$ implies $P=NP$. Are these observations correct?

What if I replace $DTIME$ by $RTIME$? Would this yield $RP=NP$ by some randomized version Ladner's theorem?

I'm annoyed at both ["any" being used as a quantifier] and [the placement of quantifiers making things even more ambiguous], so I'll start with the two interpretations of your initial block-quote.

Suppose there is a function $\hspace{.04 in}f$ in $\omega(1)$ such that ​ NP $\subseteq$ DTIME$\left[\hspace{-0.02 in}n^{\hspace{.04 in}f(n)}\hspace{-0.03 in}\right]$ .
Does it follow that ​ P = NP ?

It's not known to, since ​ ​ ​ ($n\mapsto 2^{\hspace{.02 in}n}\hspace{-0.03 in}$) ​ $\in$ ​ $\omega(1)$ ​ ​ ​ and ​ NP $\subseteq$ EXP $\subseteq$ DTIME$\left[\hspace{-0.02 in}n^{\hspace{.04 in}(2^{\hspace{.02 in}n})}\hspace{-0.04 in}\right]$ ​ are both known.

Suppose that for all functions $\hspace{.04 in}f$ in $\omega(1)$, ​ NP $\subseteq$ DTIME$\left[\hspace{-0.02 in}n^{\hspace{.04 in}f(n)}\hspace{-0.03 in}\right]$ .
Does it follow that ​ P = NP ?

Yes, since as described in this answer, there exists
a function $\hspace{.04 in}f$ in $\omega(1)$ such that ​ DTIME$\left[\hspace{-0.02 in}n^{\hspace{.04 in}f(n)}\hspace{-0.03 in}\right]$ = P .

The truth of your "That is ... fixed $c\geq 1$." sentence has nothing to do with Ladner's Theorem
- The empty language and full language, for example, are such NP problems.
For the sentence after that, the g given by ​ g(n) = c ​ is such a g, and functions f cannot simultaneously be in $\omega(1)$ and satisfy ​ f(n) << c , ​ so where's the violation of Ladner's theorem?
By the function g I just mentioned, the part of your
"And so if ..." sentence before that sentence's "and" is true.
For the rest of that sentence, see this answer's two block-quotes and its responses to those.

This answer's response to its "there is" block-quote would still apply.
I believe this answer's response to its "for all" block-quote
would also still apply, by a similar argument.

• the link you posted was exactly what I am looking for. – T.... Oct 24 '16 at 1:55