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

Groups > comp.theory > #106832

Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'?

From wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.theory
Subject Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'?
Date 2024-06-10 05:58 +0800
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <0ae353a37b1dcf2926997ff00f7770999ee28b79.camel@gmail.com> (permalink)
References <e243777ead89baebc46eac4944e43adde8a9ddce.camel@gmail.com> <875xuh51rv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

Show all headers | View raw

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.

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web