The Core Difference (Find vs Verify): Problems in the P class are those whose solutions are easy to find and easy to verify. Problems in the NP class only mean the solutions are easy to verify. To this day, nobody has found a fast method (polynomial time) to FIND the solution for NP-Complete problems.NP-Complete as the "Wall" of Obstruction: NP-Complete problems (like Clique or Subset Sum) are considered the hardest computational problems in the universe. For over 50 years, researchers have tried to solve these problems with P-Time algorithms, but NONE HAVE SUCCEEDED! The absence of a discovered solution is the strongest empirical evidence that fundamentally, FINDING a solution for NPC is much harder than simply CHECKING a solution.Cosmic Implications: If P = NP, then all the hardest optimization problems in the world—from designing the perfect drug, breaking all modern encryption codes (including banking and military), to creating a super AI—could be solved with relatively fast algorithms. The fact that encryption technology still works and optimization problems are still hard is the real-world evidence that rejects P = NPThe Answer was P = NP
Tell me ur Opinion here
>>16868918if i wanted to deal with the magic 8 ball's tripe i'd toy with it myself
>>16868915Here is my shizo take:Water flowing in a river has no issue 'calculating' turbulence in 'real time' therefor there are efficient 'methodes' to sovle these kinds of problems, even if they exsist outside the grasp of (current) mathematicsSo i think N=NP
>>16868915where is the new theory?
>>16868915just let N=1solved
Its harder to dig a hole, than it is to observe that a hole has been dugBig think, here is your fields medalThanks intellectual class
>>16868915Yes moron everyone "knows" P!=NP but nobody can prove it mathematically.
>>16870723There are very efficent ways to 'dig a hole'
>>16868915an efficient quantum computer can do clique with ease.we just need to have a good quantum computer and we're dun goofed.People wont look at your disgusting internet history (that would be biblically available), because we would all be nuked into oblivion when encryption gets pwned.
>>16868915P does not equal NPI'm not upset at people who improve algorithms and go into computing theory for optimization. I tire of you "wow" brainlets shitting up everything with your dumb wishes.
>>16869731>Water flowing in a river has no issue 'calculating' turbulence in 'real time'It is a massively parallel "cell simulation" you arent P = NP if you change the algorithms to be NP=NP.
>>16870728>"knows" P!=NP but nobody can prove it mathematically.P != NP is proven every time you calculate an algorithm as nondeterministic polynomial time. It merely isn't "exhaustive" enough for you retards who insist that just maybe a compatible polynomial algorithm might exist.
i spent on and off 10 years researching this problem, looked into many official and non official np complete problems, dug into np hard problems too which there arent many of them if you think about itAll in all i can wholeheartedly say that i havent inched closer or further than what other people have done even though i have some insights for both cases, leaning more on the p=np case>The fact that encryption technology still works and optimization problems are still hard is the real-world evidence that rejects P = NPunfortunately this argument is as weak as the old dumb-creationist argument: if people came from monkeys why are there still monkeysthe point where i left off was looking into the case for graph isomorphism, its relation to NP problems, degrees of logical transformation freedom and how does it relate to Rado graphs since if not all NP complete instances have an element of chaos/randomness that more or less force you to follow some optimized route of check and search i quit science and im off fucking around with something completely unrelated, the whole computer science scene is a scam, most "academics" are retards that i can snuff out with two or tree articles i can write in less than a weekonly person worth discussing this is prob Scott Aaronson and the other optimizing mt.rushmore people who im not sure if they are dead or notAMA
You have to observe while digging a hole it is HD = Hole Digging + O = Observation to dig a holeObservation = O The energy levels will forever be different to dig a hole than to simply observer that a hole has been dugHD + O > O
>>16868915>>16868918I like to gamble, drink beer, and eat pork tacks at Mexican whorehouses. I found my lifestyle with my job in the insurance industry.
>>16870814The insurance industry which has been worse for the consumer in every way compared to just banking the premium.
>>16870774>AMAwalnuts or almonds
>>16870766You are trying to apply empiric proof to math, it's not cool
>>16868915Descartes already dismissed this garbage with "cogito, ergo sum".If you don't know what that statement really expresses, you need to start over studying epistemology.
