Muhammad Rafif Zinlain
The answer was Still N = NP or(...) 12/10/25(Wed)22:55:44 No.16867739

File: 2054639a-e533-41e7-8e98-4(...).jpg (139 KB, 512x512)

139 KB JPG

The answer was Still N = NP or 1 Muhammad Rafif Zinlain 12/10/25(Wed)22:55:44 No.16867739

Reason?
The Non-Existence Proof Hurdle
The primary difficulty in proving P \neq NP lies in the requirement to prove a non-existence claim.
To demonstrate P = NP, one must show that for an entire class of problems (the NP-Complete set), no efficient, polynomial-time algorithm can possibly exist.
Proving that something does not exist in a complex mathematical space specifically, proving inherent computational lower bounds demands incredibly powerful and often unavailable mathematical tools. Existing proof techniques, such as Relativization or basic circuit lower bounds, have proven insufficient to tackle the general problem. Resolving this requires revolutionary breakthroughs in Complexity Theory.
2. The Small Reason: Universal Interconnectedness of NP-Complete Problems
The entire class of NP Complete problems (e.g., SAT, TSP) shares a crucial characteristic: they are all equivalent in difficulty via polynomial time reductions.
If an efficient algorithm (a P solution) were found for just one NP-Complete problem, that algorithm could be translated and applied efficiently to every other NP problem.
The immense scope and power of such a single, universally efficient algorithm make the problem exceptionally difficult. A proof that P=NP would require the discovery of an algorithm that currently seems to defy intuition and would simultaneously solve thousands of long standing computational challenges, i Will keep guys update if i Solved it