Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #106692 > unrolled thread

Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'?

Back to article view | Back to comp.theory

Contents

  Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 22:11 +0800
    Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 22:17 +0800
    Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-09 20:55 +0100
      Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 05:58 +0800
        Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2024-06-09 23:57 +0100
          Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 08:06 +0800
            Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2024-06-10 14:54 +0100
              Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 22:33 +0800
        Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-10 00:36 +0100
          Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 08:12 +0800
            Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-10 21:50 +0100
              Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:37 +0800
                Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-06-11 00:32 -0600
                  Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 16:01 +0800
                Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-11 11:43 +0100
          Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 22:26 +0800
            Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-10 21:45 +0100

#106692 — Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'?

ℙ≠ℕℙ Proved. https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/PNP-proof-en.txt/download
...[cut]
   Proof2: Let p="Given a number n, determine whether or not n is even". If
          ℙ=ℕℙ, then p∉ℕℙℂ is a false proposition because all ℕℙ problems
          including ℕℙℂ are mutually Ptime reducible. Since p∉ℕℙℂ is true,
          ℙ≠ℕℙ is concluded.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#106694

On Sat, 2024-06-08 at 22:11 +0800, wij wrote:
> ℙ≠ℕℙ Proved. https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/PNP-proof-en.txt/download
> ...[cut]
>    Proof2: Let p="Given a number n, determine whether or not n is even". If
>           ℙ=ℕℙ, then p∉ℕℙℂ is a false proposition because all ℕℙ problems
>           including ℕℙℂ are mutually Ptime reducible. Since p∉ℕℙℂ is true,
>           ℙ≠ℕℙ is concluded.
> 

I find this is the most convincing one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106830

wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:

> ℙ≠ℕℙ Proved. https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/PNP-proof-en.txt/download
> ...[cut]
>    Proof2: Let p="Given a number n, determine whether or not n is even". If
>           ℙ=ℕℙ, then p∉ℕℙℂ is a false proposition because all ℕℙ problems
>           including ℕℙℂ are mutually Ptime reducible. Since p∉ℕℙℂ is true,
>           ℙ≠ℕℙ is concluded.

Where is your proof that p is not NP-complete?  Since you don't know
this subject very well, you would benefit more from asking people to
direct you to resources from which you could learn, rather than posting
provocative messages.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106832

On Sun, 2024-06-09 at 20:55 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > ℙ≠ℕℙ Proved. https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/PNP-proof-en.txt/download
> > ...[cut]
> >    Proof2: Let p="Given a number n, determine whether or not n is even". If
> >           ℙ=ℕℙ, then p∉ℕℙℂ is a false proposition because all ℕℙ problems
> >           including ℕℙℂ are mutually Ptime reducible. Since p∉ℕℙℂ is true,
> >           ℙ≠ℕℙ is concluded.
> 
> Where is your proof that p is not NP-complete?  Since you don't know
> this subject very well, you would benefit more from asking people to
> direct you to resources from which you could learn, rather than posting
> provocative messages.

Barking only damages the image you desperately to manage in useset.
Is the word 'humiliating' triggered the nighmare by olcott the genious?
Do you still insist 0.999...∉[0,1)? LOL. This time, suggesting you are very
knowledgeable that "Determine n is even" not NPC needs proof...LOL again.
Please don't troll like crank. Say something nutrious or shut up.

To be on topic, can you show us the p (as mentioned) is NPC or p is not NPC,
either will do, to prove how much you understand what you talked about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106833

On 09/06/2024 22:58, wij wrote:
[To Ben:]
> Do you still insist 0.999...∉[0,1)? LOL.

	Before anyone "insists" on either that or its contrary, you need
to explain your notation.  If you are talking about conventional "Real"
numbers, then the proof is straightforward and known to everyone with a
decent education in mathematics.  If you're talking about some different
"Wij-numbers", then no-one here can tell you what their properties are
until you define them properly, and your various attempts to do that over
the years have been long on assertions and short on axioms and proofs.
Adding "LOL" to everything you think you understand better than Ben is
unhelpful.  For my part, I can only repeat earlier suggestions that you
read up about "Surreal" and "Hyperreal" numbers [Wiki is your friend];
they solve many of the problems you seem to have with "Real" numbers.

>					   This time, suggesting you are very
> knowledgeable that "Determine n is even" not NPC needs proof...LOL again.

	Again, before you disrespect Ben, perhaps you should think about
what he said to you.  Generations of undergraduates have been asked what
they could deduce about NPC *if* P == NP.  In the light of that, your
assumption that your problem "p" is not NPC amounts to assuming P /= NP,
so it's not surprising [but is unhelpful] that P /= NP follows from it.
[Hint:  Think about how you could reduce an instance of some "difficult"
decision problem to a (trivial) instance of "p".]

-- 
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
    Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
    Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Lange

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106836

On Sun, 2024-06-09 at 23:57 +0100, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 09/06/2024 22:58, wij wrote:
> [To Ben:]
> > Do you still insist 0.999...∉[0,1)? LOL.
> 
> 	Before anyone "insists" on either that or its contrary, you need
> to explain your notation.  If you are talking about conventional "Real"
> numbers, then the proof is straightforward and known to everyone with a
> decent education in mathematics.  If you're talking about some different
> "Wij-numbers", then no-one here can tell you what their properties are
> until you define them properly, and your various attempts to do that over
> the years have been long on assertions and short on axioms and proofs.
> Adding "LOL" to everything you think you understand better than Ben is
> unhelpful.  For my part, I can only repeat earlier suggestions that you
> read up about "Surreal" and "Hyperreal" numbers [Wiki is your friend];
> they solve many of the problems you seem to have with "Real" numbers.

Thanks to Richard Damon, I changed my goal to rectify "conventional real". I was
only interested in MY real but forced to deal with RD's real. Since by the end
, they should the same, so I took the challenge. 
Honestly, I am not good in mathematics (I only read what I feel need to) but 
seems good enough for my purpose.
Maybe I could see what "Surreal" ("Hyperreal" should be the same) solves and
see how my real can (must) solve that problem. But I don't have time for that.

> > 					   This time, suggesting you are very
> > knowledgeable that "Determine n is even" not NPC needs proof...LOL again.
> 
> 	Again, before you disrespect Ben, perhaps you should think about
> what he said to you.  Generations of undergraduates have been asked what
> they could deduce about NPC *if* P == NP.  In the light of that, your
> assumption that your problem "p" is not NPC amounts to assuming P /= NP,
> so it's not surprising [but is unhelpful] that P /= NP follows from it.
> [Hint:  Think about how you could reduce an instance of some "difficult"
> decision problem to a (trivial) instance of "p".]

My best guess is that the phrase in my proof is not clear. It had been modified
from the reply by immibis several days before.

---------------------
This file is intended a proof that ℙ≠ℕℙ. The contents may be updated anytime.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/PNP-proof-en.txt/download
...[cut]
   Proof2: Let p="Given a number n, determine whether or not n is even". If
          ℙ=ℕℙ, then all the existing proofs of p∉ℕℙℂ are false proofs (because
          all ℕℙ problems including ℕℙℂ will be mutually Ptime reducible). Since
          the proofs that p∉ℕℙℂ are true, ℙ≠ℕℙ is concluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106883

On 10/06/2024 01:06, wij wrote:
[I wrote:]
>> On 09/06/2024 22:58, wij wrote:
>> [To Ben:]
>>> Do you still insist 0.999...∉[0,1)? LOL.
>> [...]  For my part, I can only repeat earlier suggestions that you
>> read up about "Surreal" and "Hyperreal" numbers [Wiki is your friend];
>> they solve many of the problems you seem to have with "Real" numbers.
> Thanks to Richard Damon, I changed my goal to rectify "conventional real". I was
> only interested in MY real but forced to deal with RD's real. Since by the end
> , they should the same, so I took the challenge.

	There is no reason at all why they should be the same.  Once you get
past the set of rationals, there are several ways mathematics could have gone
[and perhaps have gone on some remote planets].  Which way you choose makes
little difference to [eg] practical engineering, which can be approximated as
closely as you like using only rationals, but makes a huge difference (a) to
pedagogy and (b) to abstract theory [eg of infinity, computability, ...].

> Honestly, I am not good in mathematics (I only read what I feel need to) but
> seems good enough for my purpose.

	Well, it's clearly /not/ good enough for that.  Perhaps if your real
purpose was explained better, people here or elsewhere could help you;  but
not if you refuse to put in the effort yourself, and instead keep repeating
the same wrong or ill-explained claims.

> Maybe I could see what "Surreal" ("Hyperreal" should be the same) solves and
> see how my real can (must) solve that problem. But I don't have time for that.

	Surreals and hyperreals are not at all the same.  But they both include
infinitesimals, which seem to be what you want.  If you could devote some of
the time you spend trying to patch up your previous work to studying [eg] the
surreals instead, you would surely make more progress.

[P ?= NP:]
> My best guess is that the phrase in my proof is not clear. It had been modified
> from the reply by immibis several days before.

	No, that's not the problem.  Ben's [and my] point is that whether or
not p [ie, whether or not a given integer is even] is NPC is /equivalent/ to
whether or not P == NP.  This is explained in any competent course in CS that
includes the topic of NP completeness.  You are assuming what you are trying
to prove.  Doing this once is the sort of mistake we all make from time to
time.  Doing it repeatedly after it has been explained to you suggests that
the next stage is to place your head on a piece of wood and thwack it with
another piece of wood until enlightenment dawns.
-- 
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
    Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
    Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Handel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106885

On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 14:54 +0100, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 10/06/2024 01:06, wij wrote:
> [I wrote:]
> > > On 09/06/2024 22:58, wij wrote:
> > > [To Ben:]
> > > > Do you still insist 0.999...∉[0,1)? LOL.
> > > [...]  For my part, I can only repeat earlier suggestions that you
> > > read up about "Surreal" and "Hyperreal" numbers [Wiki is your friend];
> > > they solve many of the problems you seem to have with "Real" numbers.
> > Thanks to Richard Damon, I changed my goal to rectify "conventional real". I was
> > only interested in MY real but forced to deal with RD's real. Since by the end
> > , they should the same, so I took the challenge.
> 
> 	There is no reason at all why they should be the same.  Once you get
> past the set of rationals, there are several ways mathematics could have gone
> [and perhaps have gone on some remote planets].  Which way you choose makes
> little difference to [eg] practical engineering, which can be approximated as
> closely as you like using only rationals, but makes a huge difference (a) to
> pedagogy and (b) to abstract theory [eg of infinity, computability, ...].
> 
> > Honestly, I am not good in mathematics (I only read what I feel need to) but
> > seems good enough for my purpose.
> 
> 	Well, it's clearly /not/ good enough for that.  Perhaps if your real
> purpose was explained better, people here or elsewhere could help you;  but
> not if you refuse to put in the effort yourself, and instead keep repeating
> the same wrong or ill-explained claims.
> 
> > Maybe I could see what "Surreal" ("Hyperreal" should be the same) solves and
> > see how my real can (must) solve that problem. But I don't have time for that.
> 
> 	Surreals and hyperreals are not at all the same.  But they both include
> infinitesimals, which seem to be what you want.  If you could devote some of
> the time you spend trying to patch up your previous work to studying [eg] the
> surreals instead, you would surely make more progress.

If you watch closely, "My real" should include Surreals and Hyperreals (not
very sure until I read it) and even 'cardinal numbers' like ℵ₁,ℵ₂,ℵ₃,...
I am not a mathematician, no time for these 'theoretical' stuff.

> [P ?= NP:]
> > My best guess is that the phrase in my proof is not clear. It had been modified
> > from the reply by immibis several days before.
> 
> 	No, that's not the problem.  Ben's [and my] point is that whether or
> not p [ie, whether or not a given integer is even] is NPC is /equivalent/ to
> whether or not P == NP.  This is explained in any competent course in CS that
> includes the topic of NP completeness.  You are assuming what you are trying
> to prove.  Doing this once is the sort of mistake we all make from time to
> time.  Doing it repeatedly after it has been explained to you suggests that
> the next stage is to place your head on a piece of wood and thwack it with
> another piece of wood until enlightenment dawns.

See my reply to Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106834

wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, 2024-06-09 at 20:55 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > ℙ≠ℕℙ
>> > Proved. https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/PNP-proof-en.txt/download
>> > ...[cut]
>> >    Proof2: Let p="Given a number n, determine whether or not n is even". If
>> >           ℙ=ℕℙ, then p∉ℕℙℂ is a false proposition because all ℕℙ problems
>> >           including ℕℙℂ are mutually Ptime reducible. Since p∉ℕℙℂ is true,
>> >           ℙ≠ℕℙ is concluded.
>> 
>> Where is your proof that p is not NP-complete?  Since you don't know
>> this subject very well, you would benefit more from asking people to
>> direct you to resources from which you could learn, rather than posting
>> provocative messages.

<silly insults deleted>

> To be on topic, can you show us the p (as mentioned) is NPC or p is
> not NPC, either will do, to prove how much you understand what you
> talked about.

If I could do that I would be rich, quite literally.  Sadly, I can't and
neither can anyone else on the planet (so far).  But if you think you
can, head over to the Clay Mathematics Institute and persuade them to
give you a million dollars[1].

For the hard-of-understanding, a proof that p, which is obviously in P,
is also in NPC would immediately prove that P=NP.  Alternatively, a
proof that p is not in NPC would immediately prove that P=/=NP.

[1] https://www.claymath.org/millennium/p-vs-np/
-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106837

On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 00:36 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, 2024-06-09 at 20:55 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > > wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
> > > 
> > > > ℙ≠ℕℙ
> > > > Proved. https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/PNP-proof-en.txt/download
> > > > ...[cut]
> > > >    Proof2: Let p="Given a number n, determine whether or not n is even". If
> > > >           ℙ=ℕℙ, then p∉ℕℙℂ is a false proposition because all ℕℙ problems
> > > >           including ℕℙℂ are mutually Ptime reducible. Since p∉ℕℙℂ is true,
> > > >           ℙ≠ℕℙ is concluded.
> > > 
> > > Where is your proof that p is not NP-complete?  Since you don't know
> > > this subject very well, you would benefit more from asking people to
> > > direct you to resources from which you could learn, rather than posting
> > > provocative messages.
> 
> <silly insults deleted>
> 
> > To be on topic, can you show us the p (as mentioned) is NPC or p is
> > not NPC, either will do, to prove how much you understand what you
> > talked about.
> 
> If I could do that I would be rich, quite literally.  Sadly, I can't and
> neither can anyone else on the planet (so far).  But if you think you
> can, head over to the Clay Mathematics Institute and persuade them to
> give you a million dollars[1].

Money corrupts soul (I had been rich enough, I know what that means).

> For the hard-of-understanding, a proof that p, which is obviously in P,
> is also in NPC would immediately prove that P=NP.  Alternatively, a
> proof that p is not in NPC would immediately prove that P=/=NP.
> 
> [1] https://www.claymath.org/millennium/p-vs-np/

That is the point, no need to prove p∈NPC or not (and the reviwer would see it
as noise if provided). Either way will cause problem. It's the semantics of the
P-NP problem. So I declare P!=NP (if the NPC theory is correct).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106914

wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 00:36 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Sun, 2024-06-09 at 20:55 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> > > wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
>> > > 
>> > > > ℙ≠ℕℙ
>> > > > Proved. https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/PNP-proof-en.txt/download
>> > > > ...[cut]
>> > > >    Proof2: Let p="Given a number n, determine whether or not n
>> > > > is even". If
>> > > >           ℙ=ℕℙ, then p∉ℕℙℂ is a false proposition because all
>> > > > ℕℙ problems
>> > > >           including ℕℙℂ are mutually Ptime reducible. Since
>> > > > p∉ℕℙℂ is true,
>> > > >           ℙ≠ℕℙ is concluded.
>> > > 
>> > > Where is your proof that p is not NP-complete?  Since you don't know
>> > > this subject very well, you would benefit more from asking people to
>> > > direct you to resources from which you could learn, rather than posting
>> > > provocative messages.
>> 
>> <silly insults deleted>
>> 
>> > To be on topic, can you show us the p (as mentioned) is NPC or p is
>> > not NPC, either will do, to prove how much you understand what you
>> > talked about.
>> 
>> If I could do that I would be rich, quite literally.  Sadly, I can't and
>> neither can anyone else on the planet (so far).  But if you think you
>> can, head over to the Clay Mathematics Institute and persuade them to
>> give you a million dollars[1].
>
> Money corrupts soul (I had been rich enough, I know what that means).

Every crank has to have a reason why they post in the almost dead corner
of the Internet rather that publishing, gaining fame and/or fortune or,
in fact, doing anything to get their apparently radical ideas properly
disseminated.

Over the years, I've probably heard them all.  So you don't want the
money.  OK.  Why don't you want to publish where mathematicians will
find out about your ideas?

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106921

On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 21:50 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 00:36 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > > wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
> > > 
> > > > On Sun, 2024-06-09 at 20:55 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > > > > wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > ℙ≠ℕℙ
> > > > > > Proved. https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/PNP-proof-en.txt/download
> > > > > > ...[cut]
> > > > > >    Proof2: Let p="Given a number n, determine whether or not n
> > > > > > is even". If
> > > > > >           ℙ=ℕℙ, then p∉ℕℙℂ is a false proposition because all
> > > > > > ℕℙ problems
> > > > > >           including ℕℙℂ are mutually Ptime reducible. Since
> > > > > > p∉ℕℙℂ is true,
> > > > > >           ℙ≠ℕℙ is concluded.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Where is your proof that p is not NP-complete?  Since you don't know
> > > > > this subject very well, you would benefit more from asking people to
> > > > > direct you to resources from which you could learn, rather than posting
> > > > > provocative messages.
> > > 
> > > <silly insults deleted>
> > > 
> > > > To be on topic, can you show us the p (as mentioned) is NPC or p is
> > > > not NPC, either will do, to prove how much you understand what you
> > > > talked about.
> > > 
> > > If I could do that I would be rich, quite literally.  Sadly, I can't and
> > > neither can anyone else on the planet (so far).  But if you think you
> > > can, head over to the Clay Mathematics Institute and persuade them to
> > > give you a million dollars[1].
> > 
> > Money corrupts soul (I had been rich enough, I know what that means).
> 
> Every crank has to have a reason why they post in the almost dead corner
> of the Internet rather that publishing, gaining fame and/or fortune or,
> in fact, doing anything to get their apparently radical ideas properly
> disseminated.
> 
> Over the years, I've probably heard them all.  So you don't want the
> money.  OK.  Why don't you want to publish where mathematicians will
> find out about your ideas?

You and Andy are the opposite kind of crank who believe they are knowledgeable
enough. Both of these people showed many stubborn idiocy not aware of 
themselves instead stick to past illusion.
Did money drive you crazy? You are too far from my level. Eat the paper or title
you had and keep dreaming.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106923

On 6/10/2024 10:37 PM, wij wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 21:50 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 00:36 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 2024-06-09 at 20:55 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ℙ≠ℕℙ
>>>>>>> Proved. https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/PNP-proof-en.txt/download
>>>>>>> ...[cut]
>>>>>>>     Proof2: Let p="Given a number n, determine whether or not n
>>>>>>> is even". If
>>>>>>>            ℙ=ℕℙ, then p∉ℕℙℂ is a false proposition because all
>>>>>>> ℕℙ problems
>>>>>>>            including ℕℙℂ are mutually Ptime reducible. Since
>>>>>>> p∉ℕℙℂ is true,
>>>>>>>            ℙ≠ℕℙ is concluded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where is your proof that p is not NP-complete?  Since you don't know
>>>>>> this subject very well, you would benefit more from asking people to
>>>>>> direct you to resources from which you could learn, rather than posting
>>>>>> provocative messages.
>>>>
>>>> <silly insults deleted>
>>>>
>>>>> To be on topic, can you show us the p (as mentioned) is NPC or p is
>>>>> not NPC, either will do, to prove how much you understand what you
>>>>> talked about.
>>>>
>>>> If I could do that I would be rich, quite literally.  Sadly, I can't and
>>>> neither can anyone else on the planet (so far).  But if you think you
>>>> can, head over to the Clay Mathematics Institute and persuade them to
>>>> give you a million dollars[1].
>>>
>>> Money corrupts soul (I had been rich enough, I know what that means).
>>
>> Every crank has to have a reason why they post in the almost dead corner
>> of the Internet rather that publishing, gaining fame and/or fortune or,
>> in fact, doing anything to get their apparently radical ideas properly
>> disseminated.
>>
>> Over the years, I've probably heard them all.  So you don't want the
>> money.  OK.  Why don't you want to publish where mathematicians will
>> find out about your ideas?
> 
> You and Andy are the opposite kind of crank who believe they are knowledgeable
> enough. Both of these people showed many stubborn idiocy not aware of
> themselves instead stick to past illusion.
> Did money drive you crazy? You are too far from my level. Eat the paper or title
> you had and keep dreaming.
That was one of the most incomprehensible replies I've every seen on 
USENET - Congratulations! It makes no sense. It inspires me to ask you a 
serious question: Was the above reply to Ben 1) based on a problem with 
the details of English grammar and vocabulary or 2) a mind-bending brain 
freeze from eating gallons of ice cream in a single sitting? A sarky 
answer will not help your image here though I'm sure you will not admit 
to caring. So why don't you pick among the choices I've offered you or 
just give it a pass.

Oh, I forgot to include a third choice above: 3) are you a sock puppet 
for Peter?
-- 
Jeff Barnett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106931

On Tue, 2024-06-11 at 00:32 -0600, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 6/10/2024 10:37 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 21:50 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > > wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 00:36 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > > > > wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On Sun, 2024-06-09 at 20:55 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > > > > > > wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > ℙ≠ℕℙ
> > > > > > > > Proved.
> > > > > > > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/PNP-proof-en.txt/download
> > > > > > > > ...[cut]
> > > > > > > >     Proof2: Let p="Given a number n, determine whether or not n
> > > > > > > > is even". If
> > > > > > > >            ℙ=ℕℙ, then p∉ℕℙℂ is a false proposition because all
> > > > > > > > ℕℙ problems
> > > > > > > >            including ℕℙℂ are mutually Ptime reducible. Since
> > > > > > > > p∉ℕℙℂ is true,
> > > > > > > >            ℙ≠ℕℙ is concluded.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Where is your proof that p is not NP-complete?  Since you don't know
> > > > > > > this subject very well, you would benefit more from asking people to
> > > > > > > direct you to resources from which you could learn, rather than posting
> > > > > > > provocative messages.
> > > > > 
> > > > > <silly insults deleted>
> > > > > 
> > > > > > To be on topic, can you show us the p (as mentioned) is NPC or p is
> > > > > > not NPC, either will do, to prove how much you understand what you
> > > > > > talked about.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If I could do that I would be rich, quite literally.  Sadly, I can't and
> > > > > neither can anyone else on the planet (so far).  But if you think you
> > > > > can, head over to the Clay Mathematics Institute and persuade them to
> > > > > give you a million dollars[1].
> > > > 
> > > > Money corrupts soul (I had been rich enough, I know what that means).
> > > 
> > > Every crank has to have a reason why they post in the almost dead corner
> > > of the Internet rather that publishing, gaining fame and/or fortune or,
> > > in fact, doing anything to get their apparently radical ideas properly
> > > disseminated.
> > > 
> > > Over the years, I've probably heard them all.  So you don't want the
> > > money.  OK.  Why don't you want to publish where mathematicians will
> > > find out about your ideas?
> > 
> > You and Andy are the opposite kind of crank who believe they are knowledgeable
> > enough. Both of these people showed many stubborn idiocy not aware of
> > themselves instead stick to past illusion.
> > Did money drive you crazy? You are too far from my level. Eat the paper or title
> > you had and keep dreaming.
> That was one of the most incomprehensible replies I've every seen on 
> USENET - Congratulations! It makes no sense. It inspires me to ask you a 
> serious question: Was the above reply to Ben 1) based on a problem with 
> the details of English grammar and vocabulary or 2) a mind-bending brain 
> freeze from eating gallons of ice cream in a single sitting? A sarky 
> answer will not help your image here though I'm sure you will not admit 
> to caring. So why don't you pick among the choices I've offered you or 
> just give it a pass.
> 
> Oh, I forgot to include a third choice above: 3) are you a sock puppet 
> for Peter?
> -- 
> Jeff Barnett

Yes, I love olcott. He is an interesting case. He draws people to answer POOH
in positive way. Many people dislike him because his computer knowledge (and 
maybe the pervertium hobby) is very idiot. But this a public forum for solving 
problems, is't it?
Sadly, there is no room for me to join POOH. I miss Philp White (and Teresa).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106935

wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 21:50 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 00:36 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> > > wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
>> > > 
>> > > > On Sun, 2024-06-09 at 20:55 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> > > > > wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > > ℙ≠ℕℙ
>> > > > > > Proved. https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/PNP-proof-en.txt/download
>> > > > > > ...[cut]
>> > > > > >    Proof2: Let p="Given a number n, determine whether or not n
>> > > > > > is even". If
>> > > > > >           ℙ=ℕℙ, then p∉ℕℙℂ is a false proposition because all
>> > > > > > ℕℙ problems
>> > > > > >           including ℕℙℂ are mutually Ptime reducible. Since
>> > > > > > p∉ℕℙℂ is true,
>> > > > > >           ℙ≠ℕℙ is concluded.
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Where is your proof that p is not NP-complete?  Since you don't know
>> > > > > this subject very well, you would benefit more from asking people to
>> > > > > direct you to resources from which you could learn, rather
>> > > > > than posting
>> > > > > provocative messages.
>> > > 
>> > > <silly insults deleted>
>> > > 
>> > > > To be on topic, can you show us the p (as mentioned) is NPC or p is
>> > > > not NPC, either will do, to prove how much you understand what you
>> > > > talked about.
>> > > 
>> > > If I could do that I would be rich, quite literally.  Sadly, I can't and
>> > > neither can anyone else on the planet (so far).  But if you think you
>> > > can, head over to the Clay Mathematics Institute and persuade them to
>> > > give you a million dollars[1].
>> > 
>> > Money corrupts soul (I had been rich enough, I know what that means).
>> 
>> Every crank has to have a reason why they post in the almost dead corner
>> of the Internet rather that publishing, gaining fame and/or fortune or,
>> in fact, doing anything to get their apparently radical ideas properly
>> disseminated.
>> 
>> Over the years, I've probably heard them all.  So you don't want the
>> money.  OK.  Why don't you want to publish where mathematicians will
>> find out about your ideas?
>
> You and Andy are the opposite kind of crank who believe they are
> knowledgeable enough. Both of these people showed many stubborn idiocy
> not aware of themselves instead stick to past illusion.  Did money
> drive you crazy? You are too far from my level. Eat the paper or title
> you had and keep dreaming.

That answer is on my crank bingo card too.  It's the "don't answer,
insult the person who asked" square.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106884

On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 00:36 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, 2024-06-09 at 20:55 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > > wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
> > > 
> > > > ℙ≠ℕℙ
> > > > Proved. https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/PNP-proof-en.txt/download
> > > > ...[cut]
> > > >    Proof2: Let p="Given a number n, determine whether or not n is even". If
> > > >           ℙ=ℕℙ, then p∉ℕℙℂ is a false proposition because all ℕℙ problems
> > > >           including ℕℙℂ are mutually Ptime reducible. Since p∉ℕℙℂ is true,
> > > >           ℙ≠ℕℙ is concluded.
> > > 
> > > Where is your proof that p is not NP-complete?  Since you don't know
> > > this subject very well, you would benefit more from asking people to
> > > direct you to resources from which you could learn, rather than posting
> > > provocative messages.
> 
> <silly insults deleted>
> 
> > To be on topic, can you show us the p (as mentioned) is NPC or p is
> > not NPC, either will do, to prove how much you understand what you
> > talked about.
> 
> If I could do that I would be rich, quite literally.  Sadly, I can't and
> neither can anyone else on the planet (so far).  But if you think you
> can, head over to the Clay Mathematics Institute and persuade them to
> give you a million dollars[1].
> 
> For the hard-of-understanding, a proof that p, which is obviously in P,
> is also in NPC would immediately prove that P=NP.  Alternatively, a
> proof that p is not in NPC would immediately prove that P=/=NP.
> 
> [1] https://www.claymath.org/millennium/p-vs-np/

Probably I should make the Proof2 more formal:

If p∈ℕℙℂ, then ℙ=ℕℙ and the concept of ℕℙℂ is useless. 
If p∉ℕℙℂ, then ℙ=ℕℙ will be a contradiction (leads to p∈ℕℙℂ), so ℙ≠ℕℙ is true in this case.
Summary: Because ℕℙℂ is considered not useless, therefore ℙ≠ℕℙ is concluded.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106913

wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 00:36 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Sun, 2024-06-09 at 20:55 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> > > wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
>> > > 
>> > > > ℙ≠ℕℙ
>> > > > Proved. https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/PNP-proof-en.txt/download
>> > > > ...[cut]
>> > > >    Proof2: Let p="Given a number n, determine whether or not n
>> > > > is even". If
>> > > >           ℙ=ℕℙ, then p∉ℕℙℂ is a false proposition because all
>> > > > ℕℙ problems
>> > > >           including ℕℙℂ are mutually Ptime reducible. Since
>> > > > p∉ℕℙℂ is true,
>> > > >           ℙ≠ℕℙ is concluded.
>> > > 
>> > > Where is your proof that p is not NP-complete?  Since you don't know
>> > > this subject very well, you would benefit more from asking people to
>> > > direct you to resources from which you could learn, rather than posting
>> > > provocative messages.
>> 
>> <silly insults deleted>
>> 
>> > To be on topic, can you show us the p (as mentioned) is NPC or p is
>> > not NPC, either will do, to prove how much you understand what you
>> > talked about.
>> 
>> If I could do that I would be rich, quite literally.  Sadly, I can't and
>> neither can anyone else on the planet (so far).  But if you think you
>> can, head over to the Clay Mathematics Institute and persuade them to
>> give you a million dollars[1].
>> 
>> For the hard-of-understanding, a proof that p, which is obviously in P,
>> is also in NPC would immediately prove that P=NP.  Alternatively, a
>> proof that p is not in NPC would immediately prove that P=/=NP.
>> 
>> [1] https://www.claymath.org/millennium/p-vs-np/
>
> Probably I should make the Proof2 more formal:
>
> If p∈ℕℙℂ, then ℙ=ℕℙ and the concept of ℕℙℂ is useless. 

Correct, though uselessness is not a property that is provable.

> If p∉ℕℙℂ, then ℙ=ℕℙ will be a contradiction (leads to p∈ℕℙℂ), so ℙ≠ℕℙ
> is true in this case.

No.  If p∉ℕℙℂ, then ℙ=ℕℙ is false, i.e. P≠ℕℙ.  There is no
contradiction.  You cannot conclude that this leads to p∈ℕℙℂ.  That's
why in your "less formal" argument you just stated it as an unproven
fact.

> Summary: Because ℕℙℂ is considered not useless, therefore ℙ≠ℕℙ is
> concluded.

ℕℙℂ is interesting only because it's that part of ℕℙ that might not be
in ℙ.  Once the question is settled, it stops being interesting.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.theory

csiph-web