# Subset sum problem is NP-complete?

If I recognize appropriately, part amount trouble is NP - full. Below you have an array of n integers and also you are offered a target amount t, you need to return the numbers from the array which can summarize to the target (when possible).

Yet can not this trouble be addressed in polynomial time by vibrant shows method where we construct a table n X t and also take instances like claim last number is **undoubtedly ** consisted of in result and afterwards the target comes to be t - a [n ]. In various other instance, the last number is **not ** consisted of, after that the target continues to be very same t yet array comes to be of dimension n - 1. Therefore in this manner we maintain lowering dimension of trouble.

If this strategy is proper, isn't the intricacy of this n * t, which is polynomial? therefore if this comes from P as well as additionally NP - full (from what I listen to) after that P = NP.

Undoubtedly, I am missing out on something below. Where is the technicality in this thinking?

Many thanks,

This is just one of those details occasionally disregarded when learning more about the topic. The performance of an algorithm is constantly gauged in relation to the **dimension of depiction ** of the input - just how much little bits you require to inscribe it. When it comes to numbers this difference is critical given that the number $n$ is generally stood for by $\lg n$ (visit the base 2) of little bits. Therefore, a remedy that is $O(n)$ is rapid in the input dimension, therefore exceptionally ineffective.

The timeless instance for this difference is primality monitoring ; also one of the most ignorant algorithm is $O(n)$, yet we can not consider something similar to this as absolutely reliable also if we take on an actual - life strategy - we can (and also do) collaborate with numbers with hundereds of figures each day, and also common math with those numbers is fairly rapid (being polynomial in the variety of figures), yet ignorant primality screening approaches will certainly never ever end up in the real world also for numbers with a hundred figures approximately.

The very same threat prowls in any kind of trouble entailing numbers, specifically part amount.

If you share the inputs in **unary ** you get a various running time than if you share them in a greater base (binary, the majority of generally).

So the inquiry is, for part amount, what base is ideal? In computer science we generally fail to the following:

- If the input is a
**checklist**or**collection**, we share its dimension as the variety of things - If the input is an
**integer**, we share its dimension as the variety of little bits (binary figures)

The instinct below is that we intend to take the extra "compact" depiction.

So for part amount, we have a checklist of dimension $n$ and also a target integer of value $t$. Consequently it prevails to share the input dimension as $n$ and also $t=2^k$ where $k$ is the variety of little bits required to share $t$. So the running time is $O(n 2^k)$ which is rapid in $k$.

Yet one can additionally claim that $t$ is given up unary. Currently the dimension of $t$ is $t$, and also the running time is $O(n t)$, which is polynomial in $n$ and also $t$.

In decreases entailing part amount (and also various other relevant troubles like dividing, 3 - dividing, etc) we **have to ** make use of a non - unary depiction if we intend to utilize it as an NP - Hard trouble to lower from.

Related questions