He fantasises about having proved P = NP with a non-constructive proof

>He fantasises about having proved P = NP with a non-constructive proof.
>He then became very famous and rich, but he plays it modest with people, tells them that he's not that smart yet he says some cocky remarks to press.

Probably get a quick 5 minute segment on the news and quickly moved on.

Wonder if they would even bother to interview the person.

Bbut... proving P = NP is big. It'd be against all expectations.

No way. It'd be in the news all day. Normies wouldn't know what is going on, but they'd have people spouting nonsense about flying cars and lightsabers becoming a reality all day on every major news network.

Then pseudo-scientists start explaining to people what P = NP means "philosophically" and what it implies.
And how it "means" God doesn't exist.

Hahaha holy fuck, this.

"Hey VSauce, Michael here."
Anybody?

If I run a program, it runs fast.
....
Or does it ?
*raises eyebrow* *music starts playing*

*next scene is him (his head) coming up*

But Godel's tells us you can't know nothing.

People misinterpreting Incompleteness theorems is my second favourite thing.

>He fantasises becoming very rich and then going back to university to study maths and physics because he hated his awful engineering degree
>He finds his eventual specialisation very rewarding to work on, in contrast with his life up to this point, the phrase "this point" assuming the person typing this has an identical life to this imagined person, and he's going to work on his dreams as soon as he finishes this post

>he fantasizes about proving PA inconsistent and promptly retiring after to let all the other mathematicians sort out the mess

>He fantasizes about contributing to AI in a nontrivial way that isn't also an autistic meme or an industry-driven result

Is this a meme?
>t. newfag

What's the first?

We can't know nothing!
#AustrianLivesMatter

That's a cute cartoon person. What comic is it from?

That's Megumin from Konosuba.

Never understood p=np
Can someone explain like I'm a retarded Dog?

P is the set of problems for which we can find algorithms able to solve them in polynomial time (the execution time of the algorithm can be majored by a polynomial function of the input size).
NP is the set of problems for which, if you are given an answer, you can test if it's a true solution in polynomial time.
It's obvious that P is included in NP.
But the inverse inclusion has yet to be proved or refuted.