[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 5 KB, 497x200, turing.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11996057 No.11996057 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci I've got a proof that shows that P = NP. Only problem is cant publish bc I don't know how to do that.

I have a 4 page proof but I can't get professors to read it and take me seriously. I don't get serious feedback, only "hey your wrong kid"

What do? Self publish? Any pointers?

>> No.11996082

>>11996057
get a phd

>> No.11996086

>>11996082

My proof is written it just needs to dolled up for publication. I'd post it here if there wasn't a million USD at stake.

>> No.11996091

>>11996086
It’s ok, we’ll go easy on you Anon.

>> No.11996092

>>11996057
>I don't get serious feedback, only "hey your wrong kid"
That IS serious feedback. It's code for "go study the fundamentals until you understand why you are wrong". I suggest you take heed.

>> No.11996099

>>11996092
But the feedback isn't correct. I first restricted a Turing machine so it always halts in linear time.

The prof I sent the proof told me that my restricted Turing machine can't solve any problems, but I directly prove that it can in the paper. It's clear that he didn't read my paper.

>> No.11996107

>>11996099
How can you be so sure that you haven't misunderstood something basic about the problem, anon?

>> No.11996113

>>11996107
I'm pretty sure I haven't.

I'll give you guys a basic proof outline. Let's define a restricted Turing machine called a type w machine. It will only accept finite binary tapes with left and right endmarkers on the end cells. It will start on the leftmost cell of the tape and go rightward down the tape, only reading and changing state until the right endmarker is read, then it go left, back down the tape, writing and changing state. It halts after the left endmarker is read. If a Turing machine doesn't meet these requirements it's not a type w machine
Since it always halts after 2n+2 steps, where n is the length of tape, it's time complexity is the same as the memory complexity.

For two type w machines that have different transition functions, there has to be some tape that type w machines accept for which the computed tape by the two machines is different. Since there are both a countably infinite number of type w machines and tapes, there has to be some type w machine that solves some NP problem in polynomial time since NP is in PSPACE.

That's the basic idea, in the proof I make this argument more rigorous with set theory.

>> No.11996115

>>11996107
My prof said that it violates the time hierarchy theorem since it appears on the surface that type w machines always run in linear time, but if the memory increases polynomially, then so will the run time.

>> No.11996185

>>11996113
>I'm pretty sure I haven't.
I'm pretty sure you have.

>For two type w machines that have different transition functions, there has to be some tape that type w machines accept for which the computed tape by the two machines is different.
No there doesn't. You can have different-up-to-relabeling type w machines that compute the same function.

>there has to be some type w machine that solves some NP problem
I'm going to assume you mean some NP-hard problem there?

>in polynomial time since NP is in PSPACE.
Why? What does PSPACE have to do with anything? The fact that time complexity and space complexity are the same for your class of Turing machines doesn't prove anything about Turing machines in general.

>> No.11996535

>>11996113
>since NP is in PSPACE
So what? This proves absolutly nothing.

>> No.11996545

Then all you need to show is that any PSPACE problem can be solved by a type w machine. I don't think that's possible.

>> No.11996616

Just send it (email) to the editors of some sci journal (preferably a good on, like Nature or Science), they will give it a read, tell you what formating mistakes to fix (if any), send it to peer review and publish when you make the necessary fixes the reviewers mentioned (if there are any)

>> No.11996632

Here's an alright open access journal you can submit to.

https://ieeeaccess.ieee.org/submitting-an-article/

>> No.11996950

If you really have it, you could send it anonymously to YouTube channels like stand-up math maybe?

>> No.11996955

>>11996099
>I first restricted a Turing machine so it always halts in linear time.
So you arbitrarily say the machine will always halt in Linear time and then go on to show all problems are in deterministic polynomial time because of this?
shit proof

>> No.11996971
File: 3.19 MB, 3689x2457, TIMESAND___ZetaMedium.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11996971

As long as the piece of shit USA keeps sending "do not publish this" national security letters to the journals I send my manuscripts to, it will never appear anywhere other than viXra. Sadly, the $1M is not for solving the problem. The $1M is for being a proficient enough social networker to find someone to publish you. Even then, social networking proficiency doesn't even come into it if the USA sends deaths threats to everyone.

However, the waiver Clay extended to Perelman is the EXACT same waiver they would need to extend to me for only publishing on viXra. The difference is that the USA wasn't being a little bitch to Perelman like it is to me. Literally anyone else could have gotten credit for solving the problem but since I was the one who solved it, and I want to use a position of gravitas to bring about the abolition of the USA, and since I will testify to the things I have witnessed, things that are bitter political poison to the USA, they interfere in my ability to have a career.

>> No.11996977
File: 3.35 MB, 3296x2784, TIMESAND___QS.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11996977

>>11996971
Same thing with CERN and the spin of the particle they found in 2012. They know it has spin-1 but they don't mention it. For it to be Higgs' particle, it would have to have spin-0 but my own theory says it should have spin-1. It's more important for CERN to support the satanic agenda off the piece of shit USA than it is or them to do anything else, such as to pursue the scientific communication objectives which the LHC was literally built to support.

>> No.11996983
File: 295 KB, 1540x916, TIMESAND___arXivRemoved3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11996983

I mean, look at pic related. OP gets the criticism, "This is wrong." I get the criticism, "No scholarly content."

>> No.11996987

>>11996971
>>11996977
>>11996983
Tooker, you're better than OP.

>> No.11996997
File: 314 KB, 2113x1915, TIMESAND___35yefetjhjejtyruetyug563wtuue3h338658wnc7refrgrz.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11996997

This isn't even half of them.

>> No.11997672

>>11996113

I'm going to steal your idea and make a million bucks

>> No.11997687

>>11996971
I want to be a schizo like you. How do I become a schizo?

>> No.11997750

>>11996983
Can you actually post proof that you gave this to any professor and actually received criticism? Conversations?

>> No.11997787

>>11996983
That means basically the same thing. The decision "no scholarly content" roughly means "you are not contributing anything here"; the addendum of "because it is obviously wrong" is something they generally leave out for politeness.

>> No.11997861

>>11996997
>Professor Tooker

My my, from siphoning WiFi at the dump behind McDonald's to a cushy tenure track in the Ivory Tower I see.

You're alright, Took.

>> No.11998543

>>11997750
I did never receive any criticism. I don't consider, "This is garbage," to be criticism and that's about the only thing I ever heard back on it.

>> No.11998552

>>11996057
Final_final_completelyFinished_FINAL_CORRECTED_FINAL_FINISHED_proof

>> No.11998560

>>11998543
>I don't consider, "This is garbage," to be criticism and that's about the only thing I ever heard back on it.
Why not? Too on the nose for your tastes?

>> No.11998571

>>11996057
>What do? Self publish? Any pointers?

Mechanically prove your claim using a proof assistant, send the definitions to reviewers so that they can check you're not full of shit, and if they are right, publish the proof signed cryptographically.

>> No.11998681

>>11996057
>Self publish?
Unironically this. Sure it's pricey, but if right, you'll make bank and immortalise yourself.
Plus people care about this shit. Professors these days are normally shit. Even in puresci and maths everything is turning to our "colonial lenses". Go to the full autismos, not these socials.

>> No.11998684

>>11996113
>type w machine
You have to show that the time and space complexity here correspond to the conventional ones on a general Turing machine. Space restricted models are well known to be much weaker.
>it halts in 2n + 2 steps
Any cursory glance could tell you this restriction trivially couldn’t solve some basic problems. You haven’t shown that NP-hard problems as defined by regular TM’s are actually decidable in type w. I have a hard time believing there exists a way to solve 3SAT on a type w machine. Brute force doesn’t work since you can only sweep on the tape twice. Give an algorithm that does make it work.

The only serious leads on P vs. NP are geometric complexity theory and the recent MIP* = RE

>> No.11998886 [DELETED] 
File: 65 KB, 310x350, a.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11998886

>>11998571
This, so many shitty "proofs" of this, obviously a crank would avoid using a proof assistant since it'll inevitably reveal all the flaws.
The other reason is that, so far, most of the purported "proofs" have been by cranks, who don't want to formalize their result

>> No.11998896
File: 65 KB, 310x350, a.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11998896

>>11998571

This, there are so many shitty "proofs", obviously a crank would avoid using a proof assistant since it'll inevitably reveal all the flaws.

>> No.11999683

>>11998560
The main thing is that the comment does not demonstrate any particular technical proficiency on the part of my counterparty. Literally if they send a mongoloid lobotomized scientology agent know-nothing to go use his confidence game to impersonate a physics or math PhD, this is the kind of platitude they will use while flexing their emotional tone muscle at +38. IMO, a criticism ought to demonstrate the competency of the critic. You know how movie critics will write, "Not since (obscure movie) cemented (obscure film person's) reputation for (film characteristic) has any movie (verbed) me as much as (new movie) which was, (blah blah blah suggesting I watched the new movie)?" Usually by "criticism" in science we mean "constructive criticism" which takes for the form of "peer-review." In peer-review, the "peer" offers information such as
>this is unsupported
>this is an error
>this is what would need to be done to fix the error
>I would like more information regarding this thing.
Literally "this is garbage" sounds like my CIA handlers intercepting my emails and sending me fake rejection letters. Such a comment does not demonstrate that any review has taken place.

>> No.11999710

>>11996545
If the P = NP is solved then they don't need to show what it refutes. How stupid would that fucking be? Listing all use cases and benefit findings is ALL anyone would want from a code script version of P = NP because it would signify the completion of any*all arbitrary processes in any given cycle.

given that Primary + Arbitrary > process*2

Addition occurs in square-root time, multiplication occurs in polynomial time, division occurs in cubic time, exponentiation occurs in real-time, and square-root time is imaginary time.

>> No.11999714
File: 567 KB, 445x875, 1569244200918.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11999714

Actually, if the only result we can validate is essentially 0 and a negative number, or two unique results at the same time, then what isn't triangulation of thought, interpretation, or translation?

>> No.11999732
File: 10 KB, 284x178, 1593086424511.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11999732

There is only recognition and reaction time.

>The End.

>> No.11999768

>>11999683
>The main thing is that the comment does not demonstrate any particular technical proficiency on the part of my counterparty. Literally if they send a mongoloid lobotomized scientology agent know-nothing to go use his confidence game to impersonate a physics or math PhD, this is the kind of platitude they will use while flexing their emotional tone muscle at +38. IMO, a criticism ought to demonstrate the competency of the critic.
This is true, and I agree that it would be nice if peer-reviewed publications could consistently do reviews of this order. But I do not think they realistically can.

If I write a "paper" that is just nonsensical verbiage from start to finish, then it will take a reviewer much longer to constructively explain why my writing is nonsense, than it took for me to write it. If review panels did this, they would be overwhelmed by people submitting nonsense -- all the more because people submitting nonsense often submit a single paper to dozens of different publications. To avoid drowning in the mud, reviewers have no choice but to resort to a summary review of "this is nonsense, go away" for papers beyond a certain threshold of incoherence. They will write constructive criticism for submissions that are almost good and useful but not quite there yet; while giving a summary judgement for submissions that are so bad as to be not even wrong. It cannot be any other way, not without these publications having truly vast resources at their disposal.

>> No.11999781

>>11997687
dont take your meds

>> No.11999788

>>11999781
I agree. Take someone else's meds instead.

>> No.11999821
File: 232 KB, 640x640, take your meds.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11999821

>>11999683

>> No.11999835

>>11999821
How is the last panel related or relevant?

>> No.11999862
File: 205 KB, 640x640, TIMESAND___7tg310ddx13xa4xz4ax0zx4dzcjnikd0g1bjb4xgvzz3a3gzc0nhhzn7bc4b6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11999862

>>11999768
>If I write a "paper" that is just nonsensical verbiage from start to finish, then it will take a reviewer much longer to constructively explain why my writing is nonsense
I disagree. I think the reviewer could say, "The words in the paper don't form complete sentences," and leave it at that. Maybe, "The author fails to demonstrate sufficient master of the English language."

>> No.11999864

>>11999862
So you mean would simply make a rejection based on an ever fractionalizing observation/witness result?

>> No.11999876

>>11999862
Well, a review of "this is garbage" essentially means "the author fails to demonstrate sufficient mastery of the subject matter". Do you prefer that version?

>> No.11999880

What is the velocity of mathematics?

>> No.11999902

>>11999862
And even beyond the "no mastery" criticism that a reviewer could use, aren't there plenty of examples where authors did exactly what you said with random words and then also have the paper pass review and be published? I think the operative thing in my paper is that I want to use scientific accolades to kill my enemies, so my enemies send "do not publish" national security letters to the journals where I submit my manuscripts. In this way, they undermine my intention to kill them.

This one sheds a nice light everyone like this person: >>11998560
>Computer-generated gobbledygook can pass for the real thing with many faculty members, study finds.
>In a quarter of cases, academics said they agreed with the fake review’s conclusions, even though they were entirely made up of computer-generated gobbledygook
>https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/09/22/many-academics-are-fooled-robot-written-peer-reviews
Since morons believe truth comes from authority, morons never doubt what they authorities tell them.

Certainly the only thing that got looked at here was where it said "asterisk MIT" next to the authors' names.
>How computer-generated fake papers are flooding academia
>The students wrote a simple computer program that churned out gobbledegook and presented it as an academic paper. They put their names on one of the papers, sent it to a conference, and promptly had it accepted. The sting, in 2005, revealed a farce that lay at the heart of science.
>https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2014/feb/26/how-computer-generated-fake-papers-flooding-academia

>How three MIT students fooled the world of scientific journals
>A decade later, CSAIL alumni reflect on their paper generator and reveal a new fake-conference project.
>http://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scientific-journals-0414

Literally the only people who don't know that peer-review is complete dogshit are people who don't do research. This is why everyone uses arXiv.

>> No.11999931
File: 75 KB, 500x500, TIMESAND___91h7d9f7w9g7f797g7ky7k986785r57k8r7j5hitfwjfu1fc1uv1b6xc1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11999931

>>11999864
I don't know what you mean. Is that word salad there, posed in jest? Can't tell if serious.

>>11999876
> Do you prefer that version?
That still fails to demonstrate the competence of the reviewer. Being illiterate is not a technical short-coming of the manuscript. That's like submitting an English language paper to a journal that only publishes Chinese papers. The version I prefer is the one where you regret what you wrote.

>> No.11999933
File: 12 KB, 640x640, 1579370031827.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11999933

>>11999902
Why are you a slave to reading, interpreting, and forming English communications there, Tooker?

>>11999931
When does review/revision end, I believe is a better interpretation

>> No.11999938

>>11999933
Why do you show no shame? You are shameful person and your ancestors would cry if they could see what became of their descendants.

>> No.11999946
File: 109 KB, 1059x1265, 1575974950595.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11999946

>>11999938
What shame would I have to show? Also, I am the ancestor of my people.

>> No.11999950

>>11999946
What is your opinion on retrocausality, shame boy?

>> No.11999956
File: 40 KB, 480x360, 1574188869376.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11999956

>>11999950
Wow, that future shame boy in your life is going to be extremely pissed at how hard I am going to make it for him. Oh well.

Let's consider future shame boy one sperm, and simply call this my future son that I can divinely sacrifice for whatever I want and not expect or experience any negative fallout from doing so because being able to divinely sacrifice one future male that I birth is the price I pay for my divine fuel.

>Before that I'll heal all detriments, end all nightmares, and remove rape/abuse from all action and language.

I'll even birth this future shame boy with my sister, just to put ALL the shame into one future boy, all thanks to Johnathan Tooker AKA El Arcón. In exchange he is the one that proves or disproves the Riemann-Zeta, no more questions asked. Yaaay Tooker!

>> No.11999980
File: 204 KB, 888x499, 1585046639109.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11999980

>>11999956
>>11999950
Oh! I'll also force said future shame boy child to have to read this thread and everything else I've ever posted on the internet! Thank you very much, uh, I don't remember ALL the names you've used over the years Tooker so I'll just jot you down as Tooker.

After my future shame boy has finished reading and learning from all of it he will ask me, "Father, why did you curse me to do this?" To which I'll reply, "The blame lies with Johnathan Tooker, for I personally didn't actually want a son but he forced me to have you through using his magical 4chan powers that I was defenseless to. Defenseless! I'm the victim here, Son!"

>> No.11999983
File: 41 KB, 1023x593, TIMESAND___7tfdexa3x13xa4xzee0zx4dzcjnikd0g1b3zz3a3zc0nhhzn7bc4b6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11999983

>>11999956
Post face, heathen.

>> No.11999992
File: 678 KB, 1920x1440, 1566697872403.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11999992

>>11999983
I post face regularly and provide my identity to authority upon request. It is such a pointless activity though and I wonder why anyone bothers.

Who are 'they' in the context of your image?

>> No.12000004
File: 55 KB, 802x823, TIMESAND___7tg310dexa3x13xa4xz4azcjnikd0g1bjb4xgvzz3a3zc0nhhzn7bc4b6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12000004

>>11999992
"They" are the heathens.

>> No.12000008

>>12000004
It's amazing how much of the Bible is just one big emotional handjob for people who bitched and moaned until someone else solved the problem for them, then basically start stroking their judgement and punishment rod.

>> No.12000013

>>12000008
Was it you, then, who just remotely electroshocked my penis with a sexual torture device implanted into a stab wound on the side of my penis?

>> No.12000020

>>12000013
No. Why would I waste my time being a part of that wankery?

>> No.12000027

>>12000020
Why did you waste all of that time in three dozen other threads getting BTFOed trying to stupidly shit on my result? Seems like exactly the sort of thing you'd be into. Seems like your name "Solipsist Vagus" screams, "That is exactly the kind of shameful thing in which I invest my time."

>> No.12000035

SV's little helpers: AAAAHHHHH, Help HELP! He's torturing me, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
SV: I don't think you exist, lol.

>> No.12000037

>>12000027
It's training for my martial arts of ego. I thought you knew that by now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-pGj5DOYc

>>12000035
That would be awesome if I actually had helpers instead of just 1 sister. Also why would I bother questioning whether or not you exist? You are a set of communication protocols and personas that I am interacting with. Trying to ascertain a resolution beyond that is a waste of time for anyone. Let this be a lesson to you.

>> No.12000050
File: 1.69 MB, 500x375, 1570606749718.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12000050

I can speak more on what I am told by others than that which I tell myself.

>Remove from yourself the opinion of yourself and the future will find satisfaction.

>> No.12000058

You are a heathen and your ancestors weren't. You forsook them.
>>11999938

>> No.12000062

>>11996086
>f there wasn't a million USD at stake.
just send the paper to them then (and keep a record of your transaction)

>> No.12000079

>>12000058
Yes, I don't have ancestors because I am the ancestor of my people. What part of this is that confusing for you?

>> No.12000097
File: 846 KB, 480x270, TIMESAND___jx7yt63xgx66cdaz4ryv556rbdr5rbtymolohhynyhknnmn7nource.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12000097

>>12000079
The King of Kings is above the other kings. The Lord of Lords is above the other lords. Did you betray your people by denying it?

>> No.12000104

Did you say to your people, "The grand scheme of things has put me above you and if you buck that then I will kill you, but since the grand scheme of things put him above you and me together, in that case fuck the grand scheme of things. The grand scheme of things is only correct when it says you have to do what I say but it's wrong when it says I have to do what someone else says."

It would be very solipsistic of you to do so. It's pretty stereotypical, actually.

>> No.12000107
File: 81 KB, 742x1024, 1573434888087.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12000107

>>12000097
What is it exactly I'd be denying here and to whom? There's just me and my sister, oh and the future child, of which we would be God (jointly held) of.

>I guess I'm still just amazed that there are humans that actually change any real part of themselves based on anything other than spoken words. Or at least keep one for spoken and one for written and have a depth/boundary limit for both.

>>12000104
That's a very fancy way of saying I plus one to whatever you're doing until I'm the winner. How immature is your approach to mathematics now I wonder. Me and my Sister play that plus one game all the time.

>> No.12000126

>>12000107
Among other things, it seems like you'd be denying that there is no God but God.

>> No.12000134

>>12000126
My words are so powerful that to you I would be denying something like what you've written?

>> No.12000145

>>12000126
Also, technically, if that is the case then technically I am talking to my future shame boy that me and my sister give birth to: Jonathan Tooker. Who probably has gotten himself homeless or locked up in a psych ward again instead of drinking water like we asked him to.

>Tooker, the God of drinking water.

>> No.12000387

>>12000134
You have denied it.

>> No.12000625

>>11996057
Nice troll, anon.

>> No.12000883

>>11996057

Just demonstrate it. If you can build a computer that is NP complete you can u factor large products of primes much faster than a Quantum computer. Just demonstrate that and everyone will believe you. It's very easy to solve things on pen and paper. It's much harder to build something.

>> No.12001113
File: 225 KB, 640x640, take more meds.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12001113

>> No.12001114

p is not equal to np, there, it is proven.

>> No.12001227
File: 17 KB, 200x198, NPC_wojak_meme.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12001227

>>11996057
There was an insufferable autist like you in my uni (i assume there were many). He always made a deal about how he was more intelligent than everyone and everyone was just to dumb to understand him. It turns out the having some unique, quirky thought about something you read on wikipedia doesn't make you smart, and being a delusional narcissist just prevents you from ever learning. Basically you are pic related.

>> No.12001290

>>11996113
Based.

>> No.12001373

Look, this is clearly a bait.

https://www.thecut.com/2019/08/bruce-hay-paternity-trap-maria-pia-shuman-mischa-haider-follow-up.html

>> No.12001375

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/magazine/the-professor-the-bikini-model-and-the-suitcase-full-of-trouble.html

>> No.12001409
File: 203 KB, 640x640, TIMESAND___7tg310bbdra4xz4azfenikd0gbb1bjb4ef3zc0nhhzbbbbn7bc4b6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12001409

>> No.12001421

> P=NP
> produce and sell software solving hard problems in a blink of an eye
.
.
.
> no, xer shitposts on 4chan

>> No.12001452

Is this thread just two schizophrenic namefags arguing with each other?
Can’t this shit happen on discord or Reddit or wherever else?

>> No.12001455
File: 235 KB, 640x640, continue taking meds.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12001455

>> No.12001477

>>12001455
Based retard

>> No.12001479

>>12001477
its not a definition nor precise enough to be an axiom, took doesnt use an actual definition for the reals you retard

>> No.12001508

>>12001479
I define the symbol [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] as being equal to the interval stated such that
[eqn] \mathbb{R}=(-\infty,\infty) [/eqn]. Which part of "this symbol is equal to this well-defined object" does not conform to your standard of an actual definition?

Incidentally, I did not invent this axiom. This is what I learned when I studied real analysis at a major USA research university.

>> No.12001529

>>12001421
> in a blink of an eye
The problem is that it isn't necessarily a very efficient algorithm. P = NP would change computer science (and a lot of other fields) forever, but the proof isn't guaranteed to speed computation at scales we use it. [math]O(n^{100^{100}})[/math] time is polynomial, but not necessarily feasible. Whatever algorithm existed could also just take a huge (but polynomial bounded) amount of space to run in.

>>12001452
That's almost the entire board.

>> No.12001752

>>12001508
>This symbol is defined to be this other undefined thing
(-inf, inf) isnt well defined until after you define it

>> No.12001846
File: 218 KB, 640x640, TIMESAND___7tg310b4xz4azfenikd0gbb1bjb4ef3zc0nhhzbbbbn7bc4b6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12001846

>>12001752
>(-inf, inf) isnt well defined until after you define it
No, this interval is a well-defined object. Saying the unbounded, open 1D interval is not defined until I define it is like saying the Latin alphabet's characters aren't defined until I define them.

>This symbol is defined to be this other undefined thing
Furthermore, even in that case where I concede your wrong proposition that (-inf, inf) is not as pre-defined as the letters I'm writing with, I use infinity to define R, and I don't use R to define infinity. In pic related definition of infinity at the bottom of page 4, this definition does not require R. This definition satisfies the Cauchy definition of a limit with [math] x\in\mathbb{Q} [/math]. Your stupid criticism of the form, "This pseudo-circular definition collapses upon inspection," is wrong and it is as retarded as you are.

>> No.12001854
File: 3 KB, 219x97, TIMESAND___7tg31yxz4t0gbb1yy535yyef3zc0nhhzbbbbn7bc4b6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12001854

>>12001846
>pic related definition of infinity at the bottom of page 4

>>12001752
>(-inf, inf) isnt well defined until after you define it
That's also wrong. I can write f(x) = d\dx {sin(x) g(x)} and define g(x) a little later in the paper. When g(x) is a well-known symbol and I'm using the standard definition, what you say is especially wrong.

>> No.12001878

>>11996113
>Since there are both a countably infinite number of type w machines and tapes, there has to be some type w machine that solves some NP problem in polynomial time since NP is in PSPACE
What? That makes no sense.

>> No.12001888

>>11996997
PROFESSOR?!

>> No.12001908

In the unlikely event that OP is reading this thread, the correct thing to do is to bribe a upper level CS graduate student to critique the ideas. A couple of dinners at an ethnic restaurant of the student's choice should do.

>> No.12001966
File: 59 KB, 474x808, 1536201498862.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12001966

>>11996113
thanks anon it finally makes sense!

>> No.12001969

>>11996057
Jay, you've not proved shit.

>> No.12001979

>>12000107
OTP

>> No.12001980

>>11996057
Go home Fermat

>> No.12002002

>>12001846
>No, this interval is a well-defined object.
yeah, if you define the real numbers inside it first.

>Saying the unbounded, open 1D interval is not defined until I define it is like saying the Latin alphabet's characters aren't defined until I define them.
>the unbounded, open 1D interval
>THE
but theres more than one, so you need to define which one specifically
so theres no way to distinguish your R from the normal Real number line and from the long line in topology.

But even before then, an interval of What
you cant define an interval without defining the shit inside it
the symbol (-inf, inf) is defined to mean the set of all real numbers
its not the set of all x with -inf < x < inf
youre just a moron who doesnt understand definitions or implications

>> No.12002021

>>12002002
>youre just a moron who doesnt understand definitions or implications
That's the essence of the situation, yeah.

>> No.12002156

>>11996057
if you actually know what the fuck you are talking about just apply the proof and break encryptions retard. like honestly, if you have the proof you can literally break modern encryption as we know it. just do it faggot

>> No.12002163

>>12002156
That would be the sensible thing to say to OP if not for the fact that polynomial time isn't always practical, like >>12001529 said

>> No.12002221

>>12002156
Give me the materials for 8 strings of infinite length and space to mark infinite numbers and I can make a slide rule that will factorize any composite.

Not Op though.

>> No.12002227

>>12002221
To add, perhaps only 2 strings would be enough, but with 8 it is easier to see how it works.

>> No.12002248
File: 34 KB, 400x400, TIMESAND___91h77f797g7ky57w9gguv17f797g7ky577f797g7ky57c1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12002248

>>12002002
The unbounded 1D open interval can be defined in any number of ways. There is a well known theorem in topology which proves that all unbounded 1D open intervals are the same object, and there are various proofs of the same outside of topology. You can define the unbounded 1D open interval as a Hausdorff space, for example, without making reference to R.

>but theres more than one,
You are wrong. There is only one.

>distinguish your R from the normal Real number line and from the long line in topology.
Wrong again. The long line is the closure of the unbounded 1D open interval. Since the unbounded 1D open interval is not clopen, the long line is exempted from the class of objects which are all the same. BTFO.

>But even before then, an interval of What
>you cant define an interval without defining the shit inside it
It's an interval of points. From Wikipedia: "In topology and related branches of mathematics, a Hausdorff space, separated space or T2 space is a topological space where for any two distinct points there exist neighbourhoods of each which are disjoint from each other." BTFO.

>inb4 what is a point?
A point is an idea whose existence mathematicians concede: "a primitive notion upon which geometry is built," according to Wikipedia. The triangle ABC is constructed from the points A, B, and C, for example.

>the symbol (-inf, inf) is defined to mean the set of all real numbers
Since circular definitions are not desirable in my work, I have assigned the definition in the other direction. I can avoid circular definitions by saying R is equal to the interval, and then defining the interval as a Hausdorff space without referring in a circular fashion back to R.

>> No.12002260
File: 106 KB, 630x354, TIMESAND___91h77f797g7ky57w9ggur7ky577f7rrr333397g37ky57c1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12002260

What I've done in physics is far superior to what I have done in math, IMO. Likely people will say, "Ok, he did finally do something but all that physics stuff before RH was shit." That's wrong. The math might be easier to understand, certainly my math reports are more formal, and people may have a more complete understanding of the math problems I solved than the physics problems I solved, but all of this RH stuff is basically just a corollary of my cosmological model.

>> No.12002472

>>12002260
>all of this RH stuff is basically just a corollary of my cosmological model.
And you wonder why people don’t take you seriously?

>> No.12002486

>>12002248
Nothing you just said was right

Even if it were, thats all topology
You have yet to introduce the most fucking basic of arithmetic into it
Besides, your “proof” doesnt even require the reals, if theres reals in the neighborhood of infinity, then there are rationals in the neighborhood of infinity you fucking mong
Why dont you prove rh using the imaginaries with rationals coordinates, it would be one fewer assumption for us to tear into you on, wouldnt it be?

>> No.12002609

>>12002248
>The long line is the closure of the unbounded 1D open interval.
no its not, the real line is the closure of itself, not the long line
>Since the unbounded 1D open interval is not clopen
But you just said thats the real line? the real line is clopen

>It's an interval of points
which points?
why do you think you can define a set by calling it open?
it needs to be defined before you can put a topology on it you retard
you assumed a topology on it, IN its definition

>A point is an idea whose existence mathematicians concede
thats not what it means
a point is a primitive notion of geometry, yes
a point is not primitive in the rest of math, however
there is a definition of a point in math, an element of R^n
the only primitive notion in math is the epsilon of set theory
calling a point a primitive notion is just a matter of historical respect to the ancient geometers
its like how the group axioms are called axioms, theyre not, but it was initially studied as if they were axioms

>I have assigned the definition in the other direction.
youve not defined jack shit, you wrote a name for something and never explicitly wrote out what it meant
ie you gave it a name but not a definition
if you do ever try to give it a definition you dont show that it's well defined
or else you use something else thats undefined

>> No.12002632
File: 216 KB, 640x640, TIMESAND___7tg31yxz4tgbb1yy535yyef375f54w21a1a1bc4b6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12002632

>>12002472
Actually since my cosmological model is supposed to be "ontological," it follows that a lot of important stuff follows as a corollary. If it didn't, then the ontological adjective would be inappropriate. I don't wonder what you asked at all. I think the vast numbers of my haters together with the large efforts they make jointly show that people take me in the opposite way. If people were really serious when they write
>viXra
>into the trash
do you think they would take the time to write it in 80% of my threads?

>>12002486
>Nothing you just said was right
I guess I will have to send a retraction request to the Annals then.

>there are rationals in the neighborhood of infinity
there are no rationals in the neighborhood of infinity. every rational number is less than some natural number. every natural number is in he neighborhood of the origin.

>> No.12002662
File: 23 KB, 881x112, TIMESAND___7ttgbb1yy5xz4tgbb1yy5ttgbb1yy5gbb1yy535yyef375f5tgbb1yy51a1a1bc4b6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12002662

>>12002609
>the real line is clopen
I meant to say that it is not clopen in the long line which is the OBVIOUS relevant aspect of clopenness.

>why do you think you can define a set by calling it open?
I think I can begin a standard analysis by saying "Let THING be a Hausdorff space," pic related from my non-quick, long proof:
Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237

>it needs to be defined before you can put a topology on it you retard
Hausdorff has already defined a Hausorff space, luckily for me.

>there is a definition of a point in math, an element of R^n
I can't use that definition because then I would be defining in a circle. Indeed, I don't even need to define points at all because it suffices to invoke a Hausdorff space. I only brought up the definition of points because I was facetiously inb4ing you.

>>12002609
You never defined the Latin alphabet in which you are crafting posts, and yet I am able to understand what you write. How is that, do you think?

>> No.12002691
File: 12 KB, 1631x56, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12002691

>>12002632
>every natural number is in he neighborhood of the origin.
and? that doesnt mean they arent in the neighborhood of infinity
the ceiling function is defined for all reals, is it not? for any real in the neighborhood there are naturals even larger than it

Assuming for contradiction that there are no naturals in the neighborhood of infinity, take two elements in the neighborhood [math] a=\widehat{\infty} - 1, b=\widehat{\infty} - 10 [/math], then [math] a-b = 9 [/math]
so there are reals in the neighborhood of infinity that are more than 1 unit away from each other, and so there must be an integer between them

>>12002662
>I meant to say that it is not clopen in the long line which is the OBVIOUS relevant aspect of clopenness.
so we can agree that the Real line and the long line are different, cool
you still havent shown that the long line doesnt satisfy the conditions, pic

>I think I can begin a standard analysis by saying "Let THING be a Hausdorff space,"
Took, taking an arbitrary Hausdorff space isnt the same as defining a specific object

>Hausdorff has already defined a Hausorff space, luckily for me.
then why dont you use it?

>Indeed, I don't even need to define points at all because it suffices to invoke a Hausdorff space
Took, you cant prove things about the real numbers specifically if you only ever look at one fucking property

>You never defined the Latin alphabet in which you are crafting posts, and yet I am able to understand what you write. How is that, do you think?
stop being a nigger, you know thats unrelated to math

>> No.12003002

>>12002691
>that doesnt mean they arent in the neighborhood of infinity
yes it does

>so there must be an integer between them
you should try to support your claim with a proof. your unsupported statement is unconvincing.

>then why dont you use it?
I did. It's Def 2.1.1.

>stop being a nigger, you know thats unrelated to math
You are the nigger. If you'll entertain my question with an answer as I have answered yours, then I will use your answer to make the connection to math. Will you answer it:
You never defined the Latin alphabet in which you are crafting posts, and yet I am able to understand what you write. How is that, do you think?

>> No.12003012

>>12003002
>yes it does
cool, so then i just proved that theres absolutely nothing in the neighborhood of infinity
since in that case, assuming there is stuff in there like i did, we prove a contradiction

>did. It's Def 2.1.1.
thats not a space, thats an arbitrary space

>How is that, do you think?
because we both learned the latin alphabet in the same way you dumb nigger
so why do you use contrarian inequivalent definitions all over?

>> No.12003187

>>12003012
>then i just proved
Where is the proof?

>because we both learned the latin alphabet in the same way you dumb nigger
I learned the identities of the fundamental mathematical objects in the same way as the intended audience for my paper. You didn't need to define the alphabet for me and there exists a knowledge base I don't need to define either.

>> No.12003221

>>12003012
>Where is the proof?
>>12002691
>Assuming for contradiction that there are no naturals in the neighborhood of infinity, take two elements in the neighborhood a=∞ˆ−1,b=∞ˆ−10a=∞^−1,b=∞^−10, then a−b=9a−b=9
>so there are reals in the neighborhood of infinity that are more than 1 unit away from each other, and so there must be an integer between them
Since theres no integers in the neighborhood, then there no elements a or b either
why don't you have any memory?

>> No.12003318

>>12003221
>Since there's no integers in the neighborhood, then there no elements a or b either
I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion

>> No.12003331

>>12003318
If arbitrary numbers of the form inf-d are allowed in the neighborhood, then theres an integer between them
But theres no integers in the neighborhood according to you, so their cant be arbitrary inf-d numbers in the neighborhood
Its called a proof by contradiction

>> No.12003360

>>11996113
>I'm pretty sure I haven't.
This is exactly why peer-review is crucial. We often overlook miniscule errors in our thinking and having other minds look at the data helps to determine if it is accurate. Put together a non-disclosure agreement to protect yourself, get some other people on board and get down to whether or not the idea is sound or baseless.

>> No.12003362

>>11999788
To be a truly gifted shcizo the meds must take you.

>> No.12003367

>>11999835
If the last panel seems relevant and related, you have schizophrenia, if it doesnt make a lick of sense it means you're not in a state of psychosis.

>> No.12003383
File: 38 KB, 655x527, 1597300397531.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12003383

>>11996113
>since NP is in PSPACE

>> No.12003423

>>12003331
>If arbitrary numbers of the form inf-d are allowed in the neighborhood, then theres an integer between them
I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion. Is this just your opinion?

>> No.12004114

>>12003423
real numbers are just cauchy sequences of rational numbers
so if there are real numbers in the neighborhood, then there are rationals as well
and for any rational, there is an integer larger than it

>> No.12004126
File: 79 KB, 923x655, TIMESAND__ryf72wgrr3rehrywytj66256efefjwjsfgjnsvbny235nggg4b6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12004126

>>12004114
>real numbers are just cauchy sequences of rational numbers
I disagree.

>> No.12004142

>>12004126
I thought you proven that your definition was equivalent to the normal one?

>> No.12004167

for me, its defining the reals as a subset of the surreals

>> No.12004180

>>12004142
Please tell me more about your thoughts.

>> No.12004238
File: 39 KB, 848x480, 3214442B-B9D3-461F-864B-79642C0070FD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12004238

>>12004180
youre a retard, thats why your work isnt well known

>> No.12004284

>>12002632
>If people were really serious when they write
>>viXra
>>into the trash
>do you think they would take the time to write it in 80% of my threads?

New anon here. Absolutely people will post in garbage threads (like yours). People shit on others on 4chan, because it feels good. They shit on you, because it feels good, because they sincerely think your "work" is trash. Consider, ababou has his work in vixra.

But you are delusional. You think your work is good, so you find the explanation that fits.
You think "obviously they are insincere when they mock me" since that's the way to defend your belief that your "work" is good.

>> No.12004303

>>12004284
Another anon again
>If people were really serious when they write
>>viXra
>>into the trash
>do you think they would take the time to write it in 80% of my threads?
Because when people give you full criticism and point out your errors you ignore it
the poster here who knows you doesn't bother arguing with you, since youre too fucking stupid to listen to it
so it's much easier to point out how you can't even get uploaded onto the fucking ArXiv you pathetic waste of space

>> No.12005321

>>11996113
Your "w-TM" is strictly less powerful than a TM.
>>11996107 is right. As is the prof.

>> No.12006237

Why are you guys so mean?