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

Groups > comp.theory > #106914

Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'?

Show all headers | View raw

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.

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