/sci/ - Science & Math

Can you write it in Coq?

>>9547986
Can you suck my Coq?

>>9548008
you sure got him

>>9547984
Proof:
Suppose P=NP
Then P/N=P
So P must equal 0 but thats not true so P=/=NP
QED

>>9547984
You're too late. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-842112

>>9547984

my heuristic is that if a paper claims to proof N != NP or N = NP I assume it to be trash and forget about it

>>9548799
What about P = N?

>>9547984
this is a natural proof, which can't prove P ? NP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem#Results_about_difficulty_of_proof

also, anyone who mentions Coq is trolling because you'd have to literally engineer a computer in set theory instead of just saying "this is a Turing machine"

>>9548822
why are there so many fucking people trying to prove p?np here

you arent going to do it. this isn't some "im gunna prove them wrong" comeback story. anything you could come up with by yourself is something that has been thought of before or reasonably dismissed by someone much less of a brainlet

>>9548841
but i have proven it. what part is wrong?

https://fs23.formsite.com/viXra/files/f-2-2-9844912_DerLb6PT_PNP.pdf

>>9548822
The O.P. is literally the Baker-Gill Solovay theorem. He just interpreted it to mean P!=NP because he thinks [math]P^B = NP^B[/math] for an oracle B is a "property" of P and NP, rather than defining a new class, or is trolling.

>>9548848
Submit it for peer review. You can do it senpai!

>>9548848
yes just because i dont want to read through your proof for the 600th time and tell you step by step all the major problems with it, and how fundamentally you aren't proving anything here

this proves that your proof is 100% correct, good job anon

the fact that you posting your "proof by shitpost" method of solving p?np on 4chan and not anywhere else really solidifies the autism

>>9548867
i fixed the errors everyone pointed out last time. there are no more errors

>>9548884
imagine if i took a massive wet shit into a plastic bag, went around showing it to people. they would gag and i'd ask, "what's gross about it"? they would say everything, and i would ask them to point out what is specifically gross about it, what is wrong with it? they would point out the bits of corn, and i would take the bits of corn out of the plastic bag filled with diarrhea and keep showing it to people and keep taking out the bits that were particularly disgusting

eventually the bag will just be this homogeneously brown bag of wet diarrhea fundamentally disgusting with no part really more disgusting than any other

that is what your "proof" is at this point

>>9548861

it's a processes with many levels. i'm trying to use the internet to proof read it, but everyone just has this knee jerk reaction to presume that it's another "look, here is a one way function!" proof, which it's not.

i haven't had any good critical feedback for the last few revisions, just been adding comments on the parts people get confused at

there should be 0 confusion because it's formal language, but people can't read apparently

>>9548896
ok, so point out some corn, just one more time. i really need to understand what's confusing you, because the proof is legit

>>9548900
Why don't u try math stack exchange. Ask something like "What is wrong with this attempt to show that P!=NP"

>>9548912
>what's confusing me
this is your biggest issue

see a psychiatrist

>>9547984
Wow. Surely no one has ever thought of that before. Fagtron 3000.

>>9548900
how about you take 5 minutes to actually typeset it properly

>>9548900
Hey, total lay person here. I dropped out of college after calc 3 and don't remember any math now.

So if this proof or someone else's proof in a century turned out to be right would it matter?

Could you design a faster computer or a more powerful jet engine? Or is the only practical value getting the fields medal and having bragging rights?

>>9548963
ok, i'll do that

>>9548900
>i haven't had any good critical feedback for the last few revisions, just been adding comments on the parts people get confused at
Alternatively, it could be the case that you did get good critical feedback, and YOU are getting confused by the parts you keep not fixing. Have you considered that possibility?

>>9549022

if you proved P=NP then it would be kind of a big deal.

If you proved P!=NP it would be 100% for bragging rights.

>>9548900
Don't doubt yourself! You can do it senpai!

>>9548896
Except a written proof of that size can't be made homogenous like that. If it's fallacious, you should always be able to pick something out of it.

P=enis

>>9550827
Big if true.

>>9548900
just end yourself please, you can't possibly be that retarded

>>9550803
Yes you’re misunderstanding, when did I say you eventually wouldn’t be able to pick something out of it?

>>9548822
>also, anyone who mentions Coq is trolling
Ha, you're just mad you can't formalise your "proof".

Also, you still appear to be unable to accept that you can be wrong even after changing the bag of shit you call a proof for the gazillionth time.

I sure hope you're an elaborate troll, because otherwise, you'd be the saddest crank I've seen so far. (and I've engaged with quite a few of them)

>>9548900