# The defining property of problems in NP [duplicate]

I'm coming to Computer Science from Mathematics and am familiar with the idea of building classes of objects using Propositional Logic. Namely, start with some universe of objects, define some proposition $P \left( x \right)$, and then iterate over the universe of objects, applying $P \left( x \right)$ to each; keep the objects for which $P \left( x \right)$ is true; exclude each object for which $P \left( x \right)$ is false.

So, when we define a class of objects called $\mathbb{NP}$ (as in P vs NP), I really need to see a formal definition of the proposition used to build that class--as well as a formal definition of the universe of objects we're starting with.

### Defining the Universe of Discourse, $\mathbb{U}$

My understanding is that, for the question of $\mathbb{P}$ vs $\mathbb{NP}$, our universe of discourse is all decision problems that are satisfiable. Namely, problems that can be implemented in boolean logic, return a boolean result, and that someone somewhere at some point has found a finite sequence of inputs that cause the implementation to return $TRUE$.

In spite of Russell's Paradox, let us define our universe of discourse as the set $\mathbb{U}$.

### Defining $\mathbb{NP}$

$\mathbb{NP}$ is a subset of $\mathbb{U}$. Namely, it is the set of all objects in $\mathbb{U}$ for which the following proposition returns $TRUE$:

This object can be written as a decision problem that returns a boolean value, that decision problem can take any amount of time to resolve, and--as long as the decision problem resolves--given a sequence of inputs that cause the decision problem to resolve to $TRUE$, we can verify the correctness of that resolution in polynomial time.

So, in defining $\mathbb{NP}$, we are really applying our class-defining proposition $P \left( x \right)$ to objects that are compositions of four other objects: namely, a decision problem, a sequence of inputs, an output, and an algorithm for verifying the output is indeed determined by the inputs.

Furthermore, the only object in that composition whose run time we care about is the verifier: the decision problem can run in any amount of time--so long as it resolves. But the verifier needs to return in polynomial time, $O \left( n^{ O \left( 1 \right) } \right)$.

Furthermore, the $\mathbb{N}$ in $\mathbb{NP}$ stands for "nondeterministic". That word is meant to describe the following, further clause in our proposition for defining $\mathbb{NP}$:

If we are given no known solution to the decision problem being examined, we should be able in polynomial time to do the following:

1. Randomly choose values from the decision problem's input space.
2. Plug those values into the verifier.
3. Repeat until we find a sequence of inputs that both satisfy the decision problem and cause the verifier to return $TRUE$.

Is my understanding of the proposition used to define $\mathbb{NP}$ correct?

## marked as duplicate by D.W.♦Apr 20 '17 at 23:28

• In spite of Russell's Paradox It has nothing to do with Russel's paradox; these are sets of binary strings, there is no membership or self-reference in what you call the "universe of discourse". Another thing: we use all-caps ($\text{P}$ and $\text{NP}$) for complexity classes. Blackboard bold is usually reserved for canonical sets (with some exceptions). – 6005 Apr 20 '17 at 2:16
• I really need to see a formal definition of the proposition used to build that class--as well as a formal definition of the universe of objects we're starting with. It is good to have a formal definition, and the usual one is quite formal. The rest of your post, however, uses nonstandard terminology and is honestly confusing, as well as far from formal. Rather than try to interpret things in your own terms using words like "universe of discourse", I would suggest you learn how to formalize the standard terms and concepts. – 6005 Apr 20 '17 at 2:19