Honestly I think the author misunderstood and misused P != NP. They should have said something like "collusion is NP-hard". P = NP doesn't imply NP-hard problem is efficiently solvable in practice, but the author assumes so.
I was expecting some tight convergence analysis that rely exactly on some superpolynomial behavior. No, yet another fallacy about P = NP vs NP can be solved in practice. We have too many of these.
I was expecting some tight convergence analysis that rely exactly on some superpolynomial behavior. No, yet another fallacy about P = NP vs NP can be solved in practice. We have too many of these.