Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #106834
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? |
| Date | 2024-06-10 00:36 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <87zfrt3cz8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <e243777ead89baebc46eac4944e43adde8a9ddce.camel@gmail.com> <875xuh51rv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0ae353a37b1dcf2926997ff00f7770999ee28b79.camel@gmail.com> |
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.
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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