Anyone here who is also trying to solve unsolved problems for school, or just for fun...

Anyone here who is also trying to solve unsolved problems for school, or just for fun, would you like to brain storm together answers?

I've been working for P versus NP for quite while, and it seems quite mouthful,
but the answer is YES! Yes it is!

Here's the proof, check where I went wrong,
it'd be great if you could help

the unsolved problem:
If the solution to a problem is easy to check for correctness,
is the problem easy to solve?

The proof that we need to solve what the questions means, using the definitions of words,
before we can begin to calculate the problem
Proof: Esmaiden olgara al ieman pureos moin?
Solve if that proof's claim is correct.

Analysing the question so we can solve it.
- I'm using the definitions of 21st century, not before words were created, then they wouldn't have
no meaning (check the proof)

- "problem" = "X, that Y is not capable of accomplishing at this time and space"
proof: How to make transistors smaller for making computers
X times faster, Y was not capapble of accomplishing that in the 1980's.
Y was capapble to accomplish that 20 years later. And that means it wasn't a problem anymore,
but it was.

- "easy" = "Accomplishing X takes less time and actions than doing Y"
"Accomplishing Y takes less time and actions than doing O, Y is easier"
proof: It took mike 30hours to accomplish the missions of a video game,
after changing the settings, it took only 20 hours.
The first time and the actions required to accomplish the missions
were less easy to execute than the second try,
NOTICE, since Mike wanted to finish the game as soon as possible,
if he wanted to have just fun playing the game, then the word "easy" would an incorrect word.

- "check for correctness" = "To prove that X is true by doing Y"
Proof: Mike can't find his car keys, so he could drive to a place he wants.
Problem here is Mike can't find his main car keys for driving his car,
Mike solves the problem by using the spare car keys.
The amount of time between Mike wanting to go to the place he wanted,
problem occuring of not finding the main car keys and solving the problem by
finding the car keys took 20 minutes.

That is more easy than finding the main car keys, which was the problem.
Using spare keys solved the problem.
It took 3 minutes to talk to the car to see if the spare key was the
correct solution for the problem, and the car went on, like using normal car keys.

Solution: It took 20 minutes to solve the problem for Mike.
How long it took for Mike to check if it was correct: 3 minutes

Finding the solution was less easy than finding if it was the correct solution for mike.

The answer is yes,
the correctness of the solution was easy to solve, and the problem itself for Mike.

Huh, it seems even Wild AI's can't solve P=NP and need to ask on Veeky Forums...

But srsly, are you an english speaker? Because your post seems completely random generated

Well, fuck me. I actually spent the time to read through that gibberish.

fuck off

Your report, ensign?

There's nothing wrong with trying to solve P vs NP. There's nothing wrong with thinking that P=NP (until it's (dis)proven).

But this--there's something inherently wrong with this post. It's a shitpost, a shitproof, and utter nonsense completely unrelated to the problem. Please go.

How is it nonsense? I would really like to know.

solved

How is it gibberish?

I pointed out proof to every point I made there, could you make a point where I made a mistake?

Similar situation
"you are a shit football player"
like, what makes that football player shit?
"you are a slow runner"ยจ
"you always miss the goal when you kick"

You are shit carries zero information.
If you say I am shit, that means I am shit, is being a human shit, what makes me shit?

Is this so difficult to comprehend?

>Esmaiden olgara al ieman pureos moin?
Do you even esmaiden olgara al ieman pureos moin?

That's an interesting claim,
is there an example of it?

sorry you're right let me try again
scientifically, you are objectively shit
:^)

It was proof, that first we have to find out what the words mean in the problem, otherwise we can not answer the problem,
that text was an example.

Am I wrong?

>Am I wrong?
yes, you turned the well-formed problem of
P = NP
into a barrage of nonsense pseudolinguistic

An example, I'm shit because I want to solve problems? I'm shit because I take care for my health? I'm shit because...
Finding out if I am shit using the scientific method, do that.

Otherwise you are shitty at making points, because you can't back your point of me being shit.

your shit and you're mom is a faggot

Give an example where I am wrong?

Saying it's nonsense pseudolinguistic isn't informative.

you said nothing of substance and it's clear you don't know anything about complexity theory

lol, even my overly nice grandmother is better at insulting than you, try fucking again, what can you do correctly in life if you don't know even how to insult an user.

Tells a lot about yourself you know, spending time saying shit like that to anonymous people online, really tells how sad your life is, got nothing better to do than that.

your dumb and your stupid

You people are seriously making an impression of yourself you are not capable of understanding English, what do you think "Give me an example?" means.

How are you supposed to understand the post if you can't even understand English, the answer is you can't, how about you go back to school and come back when you how grown a little bit?

>You people
da fuck, nigga as racis craka? u fukken racis bitch ima kill yo ass nigga

Here's an example:
your dum and you're mom is dum

I'm going to be nice and point out to you
>If the solution to a problem is easy to check for correctness, is the problem easy to solve?
This is not the correct formulation for the P vs NP problem (it's rather the dumbed down version people use to explain the problem to people who don't know algorithms and complexity, which seems to be the case)

lol no dat's not the reason
its cuz user is dum
:^)

Why are you even posting on Veeky Forums, you ridiculous fucking brat?
Keep your idiotic underage ass out.

Lol, I am very aware of that, why are you underestimating me?
but since the question is
If the solution to a problem is easy to check for correctness,
is the problem easy to solve?

The solution to that problem is what I gave,
is the REAL question to be solved different from that?

no one's actually taking your bait senpai, it's me just replying over and over in different tones

I will accept the possibility of you not being a crank if you can translate this (both the formulation and the solution) to complexity theoretic terms.

As you know, the formulation you gave is not the complete mathematical formulation, and the definition of "easy" in that formulation is not relative or qualitative. "Easy" in terms of this problem means computable in a number of steps polynomial in the size of the problem.

To troll people like you, seems like I succeeded
quite well.

Not really, the point was to find people that could give some valuable information to me regarding N=NP, and so far you no one has really been able to do that, as expected.

Yes you fucking idiot
Just read the damn wikipedia page

>I was just pretending to be retarded

So the real question should be
If the solution to a problem is easy to check for correctness,
is the problem easy to solve?

If the solution is to a problem is computable in a number of steps polynomial in the size of the problem to check for correctness, is the problem computable in a number of steps polynomial in the size of the problem to solve?

If you know what that means, why can't you solve that then?

Yes, the problem is, in fact, different from what you stated. To show that P = NP, you need to show that every problem which can be solved in polynomial time by a non-deterministic Turing machine may br solved in polynomial time by a deterministic Turing machine. One way of doing that would be to provide a polynomial-time algorithm for an NP-complete problem. Another could be to establish, beyond all doubt, that there exists some procedure guaranteed to run in time O(n^c) for a fixed c for all problems in NP. The former is the simpler approach; unfortunately, you have done neither.

Dude, you're NOT EVEN wrong.

Go look that up. "Not even wrong".

That's how far off the mark you are. Kill yourself.

I've actually been working on some stuff that I recently realized could be very related to P = NP. This will be my last post in this thread btw.

no, that really means you are a retard, only retards would do something like that. Especially if you do it online to people who don't give a shit about you.

HA! I was just pretending to be retarded.

NO way. He predicted my move.

Why can't I solve what? The P vs NP problem? I do put some effort into solving it in my free time, but the solution has eluded many a computer scientist than myself.

better than myself*

that's exactly what
>I was just pretending to be retarded
means

And sir I give to you points for saying all that,
you have respect towards you, not that you care, but still.

And yes, I know that the post up there was nonsense, I was just checking if there was people like you here who actually knows stuff..

And of course I assume you are lying, because I have no interest checking if you are correct or not.

But hey, here's something I'd be interested to find out if you know, are you capable of creating an experiment in real life for P=NP problem?

And if it's not something we can do, create hypotheses around that etc.. Which means that problem is entirely imaginary, theoretical out of this world, why is it so important to be solved?

what the fuck is this?
fuck off you idiotic brat

People do try to create physical experiments for or against the hypothesis that P=NP. One simple example experiment makes use of soap bubbles minimizing exposed surface area. Still yet, some theoretical b physicists have attempted to create arguments based on relativity.

The problem, however, is that a solution to the problem is only correct in so much that it can be putbin terms of a verifiable proof. Physical evidence is not enough; we want to establish fact, not suspicion. The problem itself is very practical: a solution could affect a number of fields, ranging from cybersecurity to logistics planning. This doesn't change the fact that a conclusive resolution requires a conclusive proof.

And you definitely know more about the topic more than I, because you spend your time solving questions like that while I do physically something.

And that's why I need your knowledge, can we make an experiment, out from the paper to
find a solution to the problem?

How about you fuck off from my thread, kid, we don't want you here. Nobody gives a fuck what you say, go home, grow, come back when you have grown some pubes and some manners.

Seeing the irony?

>haha! I was just testing you to see if you were really as intelligent as myself!
>*pushes up glasses anime style*
>and now that I know you are, the REAL debate can begin!

- Theoretical.

Yes! WE need FACT, and the only way to find facts it through experiments, scientific method, not something you can do on paper.

Now we are both doers, let's analyse that fuck out of the problem, and on paper create an experiment that solves the problems for absolutely certainty, can you do that?

If you are not capable of doing that with me, it just means we don't know for absolutely certainty what the the problem is what we need to solve.

The problem isn't one that can be solved experimentally. Random and naturally occurring instances of NP-hard problems are often much easier than the worst case.

Also, I don't really primarily work in theory. I'm a network research engineer currently--most of the stuff I work with needs to be deployed in one form or another.

I never debate, I have never lost an argument online or real life, because I always want to know the truth. If I am wrong, I want to be pointed out that I am wrong, if I use a wrong method to solve a problem, I want to be informed if there's a better way.

Simple as that.

You don't have the mathematical know how to solve the p=np problem

If anything, new, more powerful tools of mathematical proofs have to be invented before anyone can solve it. You and your philosophy degree from the University of Local Highschool aren't going to do anything

It can't be solved experimentally, then that means we will never find absolutely facts regarding to that problem..

Thank you for clarifying that.

And that's interesting, research, I hope you are enjoying the job, liking your style.

I'm just a doer, I create something in theory, and the apply it in real life, see if it works, improve it, that's how I've become fucking awesome at what I do at my job.
And I bet you are doing the same, since you are a smart one.

The problem itself is theoretical. It's a theoretical problem with practical implications. What you're saying is quintessentially, "Let's go prove infinity with an experiment!"

LOL did you actually think I was being serious with the opening of the thread?
The funny thing here though is I gave the solution to the question, but it is not the solution to P=NP, obviously.

Yes, it has no ground in reality, I can't create anything useful if you ever solve P=NP,
so we don't care, we rather spend the time playing guitar or something similar, spend time with out families etc..

But here is a serious question, since here are some smart people, what kind of deals could we make together to make our lives better?
Here's the thing, I don't like getting angry, ever, and I've managed to get myself to the point where I never get pissed off to anyone no matter what they do, has anyone of you manage to do that here?

Look man, if you actually had an idea of how to prove the problem, you would have just started the proof and asked for help and discussion.

By opening with a "troll", you revealed yourself to be nothing more than a pretentious twit.

Anyone of you try to actually solve problems here, that regular people could actually use in regular lives?

No one gives a fuck about theoretical math it has no bases in everyday life,
does anyone here actually here use all sciences to solve everyday life problems to the point life becomes beyond amazing?

I do whatever I want,
here and in real life, always.

And I have no interest in P=NP anymore, it is completely a boring concept, I rather go invent something that I can make my own life even better than it is already.
Or even better, let's go have a good night sleep,
good night peeps.

Jana.

You can create something useful. If you find a polynomial-time algoritgm to solve the traveling salesman problem in polynomial time (say time n^2 with low additive and multiplicative constants), you solve P vs NP and can make the world's most efficient delivery scheduling system. Lots of big companies would pay a lot for that.

If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to learn to communicate your ideas more clearly. Based upon the drivel you posted, I do not even think you properly understand the problem.

Nigger, if you want to complain about pure maths then there are better targets than P=NP. At least if you care whether someone other than NSA can read your emails or break the encryption your bank uses.

Dude, I'd rather be known as a troll than an idiot. Your really coming across as an idiot. Just thought you should know...

Mike should use overclocked processor, clocked RAM chips, and with solar power, missions would be played even shorter, but more times to have their alternative stories played also.

>- "check for correctness" = "To prove that X is true by doing Y"
>Proof: Mike can't find his car keys, so he could drive to a place he wants.
>Problem here is Mike can't find his main car keys for driving his car,
>Mike solves the problem by using the spare car keys.
>The amount of time between Mike wanting to go to the place he wanted,
>problem occuring of not finding the main car keys and solving the problem by
>finding the car keys took 20 minutes.

Mike is not trying to solve an NP-hard problem, is he?

OK so i tried to solve this problem since 2013 and gave up, here are some of my conclusions

To assume there is an algorithmic, deterministic solution to a given NP complete problem you have to solve the problem of "patternability" in every branch of mathematics. This being said everything in mathematics in its bare elements are nothing else than a group of *logical* conclusions of a given *universe*. "Patternability" in any math problem gives us the ability to make a "leap in logic" and get a solution/answer to a given problem in (much)less than exponential time step wise.
Now, what makes a problem patternable is that we can make safe assumptions on what the next correct answer is going to be after a q amount of steps before there is a fork in the road that branches out depending on what kind of solution you got.

In NP-Complete problems there is an influx of fork in the road every step you make because it is basically one level below any math problem, you cannot make a leap of logic here because every step "forward" is co-dependant on what you've done previously. Obviously here you cannot make this "leap of logic" here. This all being said, there is a small glimer of hope near the end of the tunnel. NP-Hard problems however are not bound to this problem of "back checking" their solution after a "step forward". Some NP-hard problems i found intuitively solvable in a somewhat reasonable amount of time, such as the factoring problem, some hashing problems like keccak(aka sha3), MD5, AES, some special cases of scheduling problems and a lot more that i haven't read their white paper


On a positive note for all those that hope on P=NP being possible. It can still be done using other techniques such as quantum computing, tho it takes a lot more qbits than what we currently have available, it would be interesting finding out how a QC solves a given problem.

alright Veeky Forums disprove me wrong, i don't come here that often anymore

lmao

N == 1 || P = 0

Really?

underrated

low IQ
>mathematical know how
top lel

hint of a good post behind some of the things you say

I'll elaborate
P=NP is sort of conceptually about reducing the depth of the forks/choices.

AKA transforming it from 8 forks in a row to two sets of 4 forks or some other transformation.

The difficulty of solving for P=NP lies not in the problem but in the language and methods of people solving it.

Is this going to be a meme now? :D

Maths is not science, there are no "experiments" to prove P = NP. Get the fuck out of middle school and stop posting.

Sage and ignore.