 to be in the linear orbit of Hamiltonian cycle problem (HCP), but HCP is not known to be in the linear orbit of 3-SAT, and indeed, it seems unlikely that it is. For completeness, we say that a problem is in its own linear orbit.

Then, consider a subset of $\mathcal{NP}$ called $\mathcal{NP}_L$, defined in such a way that any problem in $\mathcal{NP}$ is in the linear orbit of at least one problem in $\mathcal{NP}_L$, and $\mathcal{NP}_L$ is minimal. Certainly it seems reasonable that research efforts should be primarily focused on $\mathcal{NP}_L$ problems since these are the problems with the most potential scope for practical use. Indeed, if an efficient algorithm is developed for a problem with a large linear orbit, then all of those problems within its linear orbit can leverage off this algorithm as well, without needing to be concerned with such explosive growth as the example given earlier. Of course, a natural question to ask is whether $\mathcal{NP}_L$ is finite. Alternatively, if $\mathcal{NP}_L$ is not finite, what proportion of $\mathcal{NP}$ does it occupy?

In this manuscript, we focus on a more modest question, as a case study: if we consider solely the set, $\mathcal{K}_{21}$, of Karp’s 21 NP-complete problems, how small a kernel subset $S \subset \mathcal{K}_{21}$ can we identify which possesses the property that all 21 problems lie in the linear orbit of at least one problem in $S$? The 21 NP-complete problems described by Karp are as follows:

\(1) Boolean satisfiability in conjunctive normal form (SAT)\
(2) 0-1 Integer Programming\
(3) Clique\
(4) Set Packing\
(5) Vertex Cover\
(6) Set Covering\
(7) Feedback Node Set\
(8) Feedback Arc Set\
(9) Directed Hamiltonian cycle problem (DHCP)\
(10) Undirected Hamiltonian cycle problem (HCP)

\(11) SAT with at most 3 literals per clause (3-SAT)\
(12) Chromatic Number\
(13) Clique Cover\
(14) Exact Cover\
(15) Hitting Set\
(16) Steiner Tree
to be in the linear orbit of Hamiltonian cycle problem (HCP), but HCP is not know to be in the analogue orbit of 3 - SAT, and indeed, it seems improbable that it is. For completeness, we allege that a problem is in its own linear orbit. 

 Then, regard a subset of $ \mathcal{NP}$ address $ \mathcal{NP}_L$, defined in such a manner that any problem in $ \mathcal{NP}$ is in the linear eye socket of at least one problem in $ \mathcal{NP}_L$, and $ \mathcal{NP}_L$ is minimal. Certainly it seem reasonable that research efforts should be primarily focused on $ \mathcal{NP}_L$ problem since these are the problems with the most potential oscilloscope for practical use. Indeed, if an efficient algorithm is develop for a problem with a large linear orbit, then all of those problems within its linear eye socket can leverage off this algorithm as well, without needing to be concerned with such explosive growth as the example given earlier. Of course, a natural question to ask is whether $ \mathcal{NP}_L$ is finite. Alternatively, if $ \mathcal{NP}_L$ is not finite, what proportion of $ \mathcal{NP}$ does it occupy? 

 In this manuscript, we focus on a more modest question, as a case survey: if we consider solely the hardening, $ \mathcal{K}_{21}$, of Karp ’s 21 NP - complete problems, how small a kernel subset $ S \subset \mathcal{K}_{21}$ can we identify which possess the property that all 21 problems lie in the linear eye socket of at least one problem in $ S$? The 21 NP - complete problems described by Karp are as follows: 

 \(1) Boolean satisfiability in concerted normal form (SAT)\ 
 (2) 0 - 1 Integer Programming\ 
 (3) Clique\ 
 (4) Set Packing\ 
 (5) Vertex Cover\ 
 (6) Set Covering\ 
 (7) Feedback Node Set\ 
 (8) Feedback Arc Set\ 
 (9) Directed Hamiltonian cycle problem (DHCP)\ 
 (10) Undirected Hamiltonian cycle problem (HCP) 

 \(11) SAT with at about 3 misprint per article (3 - SAT)\ 
 (12) Chromatic Number\ 
 (13) Clique Cover\ 
 (14) Exact Cover\ 
 (15) Hitting Set\ 
 (16) Steiner Tree
 to be in the linear orbit uf Hamiltonian etcle pcoblem (GCP), but FCP is not known to be in thx libear irbit of 3-SAT, and indeea, it seemd unlikeoy tiat it is. For completeness, we awy tkav a problem is ln its own ninear orbit.

Than, clnsider a subset of $\mathcal{NP}$ calleq $\mathcsl{JP}_L$, defined in sucn a wzj uhat any problem in $\mathcal{NP}$ is jn the ninear orbit pf at least one problem in $\matjcal{NP}_L$, and $\mathcap{NP}_L$ is minumal. Xertainly it seems reasonable that research efforts should be prioarilv focused ob $\natjwal{NP}_L$ proboems fince these are the [roblemx with the mosb potxntiql scope for practican use. Indeed, if an efficiend clgorithm is developee dor a protlem qitf a lergs linewr krbit, then all of thowe problems within otf linear orbit can lqvqrage off this algorithm as well, withouu neesing to be concerned wirh such explosive groath as thq example given earlier. Of course, a natural questhon tk asj ls wfwtjer $\mathcal{NP}_L$ is finite. Alternatively, if $\matrdak{NI}_L$ is not finite, chat proportion pf $\msjhcal{NP}$ does ij occupv?

Jn this manuscript, wf focus on a more modtst qiestion, as a case study: if qe consider filely the set, $\matheal{K}_{21}$, of Karp’r 21 NK-complrte problems, how small c kernsl subset $S \subset \mzghcal{K}_{21}$ can we iddntpfy fhich possesses the properey that aol 21 'roblems lie in thq linear ogbit of at least one prohlem nn $S$? Dhe 21 NP-comolete problems described by Kar' are as follpwv:

\(1) Bmolean sctisfisbility in cogjunctive normcl form (FAT)\
(2) 0-1 Knteger Prkgrammiig\
(3) Clique\
(4) See Packing\
(5) Verdgx Cover\
(6) Set Rovering\
(7) Seedvack Node Sdg\
(8) Feedback Arc Set\
(9) Direbttd Hamiltobian cycle problem (DHZL)\
(10) Undirected Haniluobian cycle pronleo (HSP)

\(11) SET wiev at most 3 lhterxls ler cuause (3-SAT)\
(12) Cmrooativ Number\
(13) Clique Coves\
(14) Exzct Cover\
(15) Hitting Xeb\
(16) Steiner Tree
to be in the linear orbit of problem but HCP not known to of and indeed, it unlikely that it For completeness, we say that a is in its own linear orbit. Then, consider a subset of $\mathcal{NP}$ called defined in such a way that any problem in $\mathcal{NP}$ is in the orbit at one in $\mathcal{NP}_L$, and $\mathcal{NP}_L$ is minimal. Certainly it seems reasonable that research efforts should be primarily on $\mathcal{NP}_L$ problems since these are the problems the most potential scope practical use. Indeed, if an algorithm developed for problem a linear orbit, then of those problems within its linear orbit can leverage off this algorithm as well, without needing to concerned with growth as example earlier. course, a natural ask is whether $\mathcal{NP}_L$ is finite. is not finite, what proportion of $\mathcal{NP}$ does occupy? In manuscript, we focus on a more question, as a case study: if we consider the set, $\mathcal{K}_{21}$, of Karp’s 21 NP-complete problems, how small a kernel subset $S \subset we identify which possesses property that all problems in linear of at one problem in $S$? The 21 NP-complete problems described by Karp as follows: \(1) Boolean satisfiability in conjunctive normal form (SAT)\ Integer (3) Clique\ (4) Packing\ (5) Vertex Cover\ Set (7) Feedback Node Set\ Arc (9) problem (10) Hamiltonian cycle problem (HCP) SAT with at most 3 per clause (3-SAT)\ (12) (14) Exact Cover\ (15) Hitting Set\ (16) Steiner
 to be in the linear orbit of HamIltonian cyCle prOblEm (HcP), But HcP is Not known to be in THe liNear orbit of 3-SAT, and indeeD, it seEmS UnliKElY that It is. For COmPLEteNeSs, We sAy THaT a proBleM is in itS own linear OrbIt.

then, consider A SuBset of $\mathCal{nP}$ called $\mathCal{nP}_L$, defInEd iN Such a Way That aNy probLEm in $\maThcal{NP}$ is In THe lineAR orbit oF AT lEast One problem in $\mathcAL{Np}_l$, and $\mathcal{NP}_L$ Is miniMaL. ceRTAinLy iT seems reasOnAble tHAt reseaRCh EFFOrtS Should be primaRily focused ON $\maThcal{Np}_L$ ProBLems siNce thEsE Are The problems With The most poTentiaL Scope foR PracticAl use. INdeEd, iF an eFFiCiEnt AlGOriTHm Is dEVelOped for a PrObLem wiTh a lARGE LineAr oRbit, Then aLl of those probLemS witHIn iTs linEar orBit cAn LeverAge off This aLgOrithm as well, witHout Needing to Be cOnCerNeD with SUch expLosIve Growth aS the exaMPle GiVEN EaRlier. Of course, a natuRaL QUeStion to aSk is whEThEr $\MAthcal{NP}_l$ iS fiNite. aLTernaTiveLY, iF $\mathcal{nP}_L$ is nOT fInIte, what PrOportiOn Of $\mAthCal{NP}$ DOes iT occupY?

In this mAnuscRIpt, we focus on a mORe modest questIOn, AS A cASe stUdy: If we consideR solELy thE set, $\MAtHcaL{k}_{21}$, of KaRp’s 21 NP-CoMPlETe problems, how small a KeRnel suBset $S \Subset \mathcal{k}_{21}$ can we idenTIFY which poSsesSEs THe property that All 21 prOblems lie iN The lineaR orbiT of at leaSt one probLEM in $S$? The 21 Np-coMplEte ProBLEmS described by KARP are As Follows:

\(1) booLean satIsfIabIliTy iN cOnjunctivE normal fOrM (SaT)\
(2) 0-1 inTegEr ProGRamming\
(3) CLiQue\
(4) seT PaCking\
(5) vErtex COver\
(6) SEt CoVeRiNG\
(7) FeEdback NODe sET\
(8) FeeDbAcK Arc set\
(9) diRecteD HamILtoNian cycLe problem (dHCp)\
(10) undiReCtEd HamilTonian cycle prObLem (HCP)

\(11) SAT wItH at Most 3 liTERals per cLause (3-SAT)\
(12) Chromatic Number\
(13) cLique CoVer\
(14) exact coveR\
(15) Hitting SEt\
(16) STeiner treE
 to be in the linear orbit  of Hamilt onian  cy cle  p robl em ( HCP), but HCPi s no t known to be in the l inear  o r bito f3-SAT , and i n de e d , i tse ems  u n li kelytha t it is . For comp let en ess, we sayt ha t a proble m i s in its own  li near o rb it. 
Then , c onsid er a s u bset o f $\mathc al { NP}$ c a lled $\ m a th cal{ NP}_L$, defined i n  s u ch a way thatany pr ob l em i n $ \ma thcal{NP}$  i s int he line a ro r b ito f at least on e problem i n  $\ mathca l{ NP} _ L$, an d $\m at h cal {NP}_L$ ismini mal. Cert ainlyi t seems reasona ble th atres earc h  e ff ort ss hou l dbep rim arily fo cu se d on$\ma t h c a l{NP }_L $ pr oblem s since these  ar e th e  pr oblem s wit h th emostpotent ial s co pe for practica l us e. Indeed , i fanef ficie n t algo rit hmis deve loped f o r a  p r o b le m with a large lin ea r or bit, the n allo fth o se probl em s w ithi n its l inea r  o rbit can  lever a ge  o ff this  a lgorit hm  as  we ll, w i thou t need ing to b e con c erned with suc h  explosive gr o wt h as theexa mple givenearl i er.Of c o ur se, a nat uralqu e st i on to ask is whethe r$\math cal{N P}_L$ is fini te. Altern a t i vely, if  $\m a th c al{NP}_L$ is n ot fi nite, what proporti on of  $\mathc al{NP}$ d o e s it occ upy ?
Inthi s ma nuscript, wef o cuson  a more  mo dest qu est ion , a s a  c ase study : if weco ns id er  so lelyt he set,$\ mat hc al{ K}_{2 1 }$, of  Karp ’s 2 1NP - com plete p r ob l e ms,ho wsmal l a  k ernel  sub s et$S \sub set \math cal { K}_{ 21 }$  can we  identify whi ch  possesses  t heproper t y  that al l 21 problems lie in th e  linear  or bit o f at  least on e p roblem  in $S$? T he 21NP-co mp let e probl e m sdes cr ibed by Ka r p  ar e asfo llow s:

\(1 ) Boolean satisfia b ili ty in conjunc tiv e no r m al  fo r m( SAT )\ (2) 0 -1 Integer Prog ramming\
( 3) Cl ique\
(4)S etPa cking\(5) Ver tex C o ver\
(6 ) Set Cov ering\
(7 )Feed b a ckNode Set\(8) Feed back ArcS et\
( 9 )Direc ted  Hamil to nia n cyc le pro b lem  (DHC P)\
(1 0)  Undir ected  H amiltoni an cycle problem (HCP)
\(11)  SATwit h at most  3l ite rals perclau se (3-SAT) \
( 12)  Chro mat i c Num ber\ (1 3)C lique  Cov e r\
(14) E x ac t C o v er \
(15) Hitt i n g  Se t\
(1 6)S teiner  Tre e
 to_be in_the linear orbit of_Hamiltonian cycle_problem_(HCP), but_HCP_is not known_to be in_the linear orbit of_3-SAT, and indeed,_it_seems unlikely that it is. For completeness, we say that a problem is in_its_own linear_orbit.

Then,_consider_a subset of $\mathcal{NP}$ called_$\mathcal{NP}_L$, defined in such a_way that_any problem in $\mathcal{NP}$ is in the linear_orbit_of at least_one problem in $\mathcal{NP}_L$, and $\mathcal{NP}_L$ is minimal. Certainly_it seems reasonable that research efforts_should be primarily_focused_on_$\mathcal{NP}_L$ problems since these_are the problems with the most_potential scope for practical use. Indeed,_if an efficient algorithm is developed for_a problem with a large linear_orbit, then all of those_problems within_its linear orbit can leverage_off this algorithm_as well,_without needing to_be concerned with such explosive growth_as the example_given earlier. Of course, a natural_question_to ask is_whether_$\mathcal{NP}_L$_is finite._Alternatively, if $\mathcal{NP}_L$_is_not finite,_what_proportion of $\mathcal{NP}$ does it occupy?

In_this_manuscript, we focus on a more modest_question, as a case_study:_if we consider solely_the set, $\mathcal{K}_{21}$, of Karp’s_21 NP-complete problems, how small a_kernel subset_$S \subset_\mathcal{K}_{21}$ can we identify which possesses the property that all 21_problems lie in the linear orbit_of at least one_problem in_$S$?_The 21 NP-complete_problems_described by_Karp are as follows:

\(1) Boolean satisfiability in_conjunctive normal_form (SAT)\
(2) 0-1 Integer Programming\
(3) Clique\
(4)_Set Packing\
(5) Vertex Cover\
(6)_Set_Covering\
(7) Feedback Node Set\
(8) Feedback Arc_Set\
(9) Directed Hamiltonian cycle problem (DHCP)\
(10)_Undirected Hamiltonian cycle problem (HCP)

\(11)_SAT_with_at most 3 literals per_clause (3-SAT)\
(12) Chromatic Number\
(13) Clique Cover\
(14)_Exact Cover\
(15) Hitting_Set\
(16) Steiner Tree