# If $P \neq NP$ why doesn't this prove the existence of OWF?

i know that $P = NP \Rightarrow$ non existence of OWF. but i don't understand why the claim: $P \neq NP \Rightarrow$ existence of OWF is wrong?

An intuitive answer would be enough.

• Where did you read that the claim is wrong? – mikeazo Nov 12 '16 at 13:24
• the existence of a proof that P and NP are not equal would not directly imply the existence of one-way functions. wikipedia – odu9 Nov 12 '16 at 13:27
• i would guess that : it's not sufficient for OWF to show that you can't solve for one input , but for np complete problem , its sufficient for just one input, but i want to make sure. – odu9 Nov 12 '16 at 13:29
• The wikipedia article links to Goldwasser and Bellare's lecture notes. – mikeazo Nov 12 '16 at 14:40
• I know I'm very late to the party, but aren't you asking why A => B <=/=> ~A => ~B? – J. Dionisio Jun 14 at 16:09