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

Groups > comp.theory > #106884

Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'?

Show all headers | View raw

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.

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