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

Groups > comp.theory > #106931

Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'?

Show all headers | View raw

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).

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