>yeah bro if you can prove the underlying math that would break 90% of online security systems forever, then we will give you 1 milliLol.
>>17057347they should pay 50% of the world's money. the alternative is they lose it all.1 million is so fucking disrespectful it's not even funny
>>17057347If you think that "it will make current technology less useful" is a valid reason to stop researching new technology, then with that logic we should still be living in caves hunting animals with pointy sticks. Oh wait, the pointy sticks will make our fists less valuable, those are forbidden.
>>17057347P is not NP no matter how many threads you retards make. "But what if", well if I fucked your mom, I'd catch gonorrhea, and that also is not gonna happen. There are also very baseless assumptions people make about P that have no reason to hold true. Every algorithm that is [math] \mathcal{O}(N^{10}) [/math] is already factually useless. There are very few algos that are N^12 ish and they are stupidly limited in scope.
>>17057371>P is not NPNobody knows that yet which is the entire reason for this research.It is literally an unsolved problem you cannot just assert the answer yourself the entire reason for the 1 million dollar bounty is for someone to actually put their money where their mouth is lol.
>>17057445>But what ifI understand your point but I don't sweep the second half of the post under the rug. A problem that is N^20 is no better than a problem that is N!.
>>17057446Fucking trivial for me to generate a counterexample
>>17057457Sure, that works both ways.10^-23 N! versus N^20. for, say, N<40.However, those are just meaningless numbers and missing the point. Both highlight that asymptotics in complexity theory can be very misleading, but that is not the important takeaway. Look at real world examples of large exponent polynomial algorithms. You will find very few and you will find that they choke up unreasonably quickly as well. For N in N^k (usually some convergence parameter) to improve my an order of magnitude you will have to blow up compute by k orders of magnitude. You would have to be a special kind of retard to think current computational power will increase by 20 orders of magnitude in our lifetime.
>>17057463What is your source metric for lifetime calibration?
$1m was a lot of money back in '98
>>17057487>LLM-esque babbleundergrad, bot, doesn't matter. Disregarded, come up with a real argument. All this P=NP talk hinges on fantastical thinking that 1) P does equal NP (hurr durr it isn't proven) and 2) that P means "viable in the real world" (yeah bro N^graham's number is easy, let me just exceed the number of atoms in the universe rq). Everything I said is common sense and trivial estimates.
>>17057645>common senseYou are not planning to advance any field of study, then. Everyone with slightly more sense has higher credence
>>17058749>non sequiturbot it is
>>17058749But he's right and you're retarded. Proving P=NP would maybe advance CS (depending on whether they make a real breakthrough or bruteforce it using a token guesser), not much else. If you want to do more, go find better heuristics for intractable problems.
>>17058760Optimization was not my topic, the question of where circumstances are derived in their estimation was my critique. Useless for me to try discussing anything we can resolve with data under a subjective style of argument
>>17059896>pseudointellctual word saladYou will never have an education. You will never be an intellectual. You will never be held in high regard by anyone with an IQ over 80. That is all. :^)
>>17059896>of where circumstances are derived in their estimation was my critique.it's not a matter of "circumstances" but "a realistic grasp of physical units and their orders of magnitude". Example: Single atoms like Si are in the order of 0.1 nm. Atoms in the gas phase respond to impulses at time scales along the line of ps-fs. Those are hard limits. Memory demands for algos cannot grow more slowly than in units of bit, and more realistically grow in units that are integer multiples of bytes. So in reality there is a very, very narrow limit of physically sensible prefactors that could possibly exist. The moment you are in the domain of triple digit orders of magnitude, hell larger double digit, no matter the physically admissible prefactor you started with, you have blown up the scale beyond "age/size of the universe".
