They proved that no solution exists.That's sooo boring. zero progress.
>>109768749And the other stuff they 'proved' (Cycle Double Cover) was also via brute force. Got nothing on Perelman.
>>109768749The Millennium Prize Problems are all kind of meh except for P vs NP. Either you disprove P = NP and come up with some super-novel idea that gives us the tools to prove hard lower bounds for algorithms, or you prove P = NP by solving 3-SAT in polynomial time.Both will be major.
>>109768857P != NP would change nothing
>>109768893It will, you will literally have a tool that says that this problem can be solved more optimally than that.
>>109768749they need to solve cancer right the fuck now.
>>109768900*can't be
>>109768902They probably could. It's just easier to make progress on something abstract like mathematics or software because all the seething experts can't do anything to stop you. In biological research they can use bureaucracy and "safety concerns" to obstruct the process.
>>109768900No it wouldn't. I just asked Astra and it said that it wouldn't.
>>109768893It does more especially the weaker avg case version since that guarantees one-way function exist and security of the global cyber world
>>109768972>that guarantees one-way function exist and security of the global cyber worldWe already assume that. Nothing would change
>>109768979Assuming is not enough. If they found a nonconstructive proof that p=np it gives the world a chance to pepair for the worse. If you didn't bothered knowing that in the end of the day you're just sleeping under a ticking time bomb.
>>109768953It will for every NP-complete problem. which is already a massive thing. if you come up with a new algorithm and prove that it is NP-complete, that's it. and it's far, far easier to prove that something is NP-complete than finding lower-bound.
>>109769001prepare*
