Why would anyone believe something this stupid is true?

Why would anyone believe something this stupid is true?

People generally don't believe that P=NP, the problem is that no one has thus far been able to formulate a solid proof that P!=NP

Because every time we though a complexity class doesn't equal another without proof, we've been wrong.

L=NL=P=NP

The world sure sucks when there are people as dumb as Donald Knuth living in it, huh?

Majority of computer scientist don't believe that P=NP.

We have not proven it yet and what amazes me is that it should be simple to prove. You just have to give a P solution to only ONE NP problem.

One polynomial-time algorithm to one NP-complete*** problem. P is in NP. Every problem in P is a problem in NP which has a polynomial-time algorithm.

Nobody thinks P=NP, or that the Riemann Hypothesis is false, etc etc. We still gotta prove it though

Mythmaticians believe far stupider things

According to Schrodinger's Cat, it is both true and false. Physicists call this a superpository of the two states.

>Nobody thinks... the Riemann Hypothesis is false
Ivić, Aleksandar (2008), "On some reasons for doubting the Riemann hypothesis"
Littlewood, J. E. (1962), "The Riemann hypothesis", The scientist speculates: an anthology of partly baked idea,

>a counterexample to the Riemann hypothesis with imaginary part this size would be far beyond anything that can currently be computed using a direct approach. The problem is that the behavior is often influenced by very slowly increasing functions such as log log T, that tend to infinity, but do so so slowly that this cannot be detected by computation. Such functions occur in the theory of the zeta function controlling the behavior of its zeros; for example the function S(T) above has average size around (log log T)1/2 . As S(T) jumps by at least 2 at any counterexample to the Riemann hypothesis, one might expect any counterexamples to the Riemann hypothesis to start appearing only when S(T) becomes large. It is never much more than 3 as far as it has been calculated, but is known to be unbounded, suggesting that calculations may not have yet reached the region of typical behavior of the zeta function.

>believe
conjecture is not about belief, fgt pls

P = NP
P/P = NP/P
N = 1

wow, that was fucking easy

>dividing by P without knowing whether it's a zero divisor in the ring
truly brainlet behaviour, please try to think before you post

N IS 1 FOR THe LAST TIME FAGGOT.

so assume P is zero.

0=N0

still checks out

But then N could be 2 retard.

Lmao dude just take the natural log of both sides god damn its like brainlet central in this thread

ln(0)=ln(0N)

Then use limits or convergence I'm sure gamma function can be applied here

I'd love to see it proved with a non-constructive proof, the butthurt that will ensure will be stuff of legends.

Condition of existence of logarithm for ln(x) is that x is bigger than 0

Why wouldn't it be?

P is whatever you want it to be.

N is 1

P=NP

it's just a useless, undefinable question
here's how:
since you exist, there are quanta, there are also the laws the quanta depend upon to interact (string theory), so you c, it's not n=np or n=/=np, it's four sided, it's the triangle wheel

You are literally talking out of your ass. P = NP is as well-defined within complexity theory as any other problem.

This isn't funny. This has never been funny. This will never be funny. You are not clever. You are not original. You are cancer.

yea? what's a mathematical construct without application? useless. kind of like you to me.

This is some grade-A retardation

you didn't refute my post, my post is right. you're just pissed I solved a ? worth a million bucks and I don't want the stupid money right?

>you just have to give a p solution to only ONE NP problem
Yeah let me just make a p solution right quick for traveling salesman, real simple boyo.

It would be easier to disprove P=NP by finding mathematical proof that it's impossible to find a P solution for a given NP problem inherently than fuck around trying to actually find a P solution to an NP problem. Not saying that you could whip up a math proof like cake, but it would be easier on the difficulty scale to develop a proof that falsifies or does not falsify all than trying to find the P solution in a sea of NP problems.

give up dude, math doesn't even matter. not without physic
the n=np conundrum is metaphysical

sorry dude i'm just in a bad mood cuz I couldn't pass a class I need as a prereq but don't need for knowledge

Actually yeah a diagonal proof would be much more simple, but the clay institute doesn't accept them

This, desu

0/10

>Let P = 5, and let N = 1.

>5 = (5)(1)

I solved it.

>but the clay institute doesn't accept them

What? Why?

Your post smells of a slightly underachieving but outwardly "science xD" high school student who read the philosophical proposition of P vs NP on Wikipedia and decided that his edgy knee-jerk response settled the issue.

No. P versus NP is a well-defined mathematical problem: for every language which may be decided in polynomial time by a non-deterministic Turing machine, is it the case that this language is also decided by a polynomial time Turing machine. Among the complexity theoretic applications of a proof, we learn whether the polynomial hierarchy collapses entirely.

Since you only care about things that you can comprehend, if the polynomial hierarchy collapses entirely, then we know that things such as circuit minimization are tractable. If circuit minimization is tractable, we get faster computing hardware. If we have faster computing hardware that can also quickly compute any polynomial-time verifiable function, then businesses save money, the world runs a bit more efficiently, and, most of all, you get "cooler video games!!11 xDD!!11".

Why do you people pretend that you know anything about complexity theory? First of all, in a constructive proof, you care about whether there exist polynomial time algorithms for NP-complete problems. If you find some arbitrary problem in NP and give a polynomial-time solution, you have not proved that P=NP.

I wouldn't expect you to know this, but a super-polynomial lower bound on an arbitrary problem in NP WOULD prove P!=NP. I'm honestly not sure if you care, though, given that you're posting in this thread for as yet not understood reasons, given your blatant lack of knowledge or care for knowledge on the topic.

Oh, they don't, do they? I suppose the Clay institute also rejects Cantor's diagonalization argument for the countability of the real numbers. Or perhaps they also reject the entire basis of the concept of decidability complexity theory. Turing only, you know, used diagonalization to prove the first undecidable problem to be undecidable.

No. You're full of it. Admit that you're full of it, and then either (a) ask to have your understanding clarified, (b) study enough to be able to actually say something of relevance, or (c) leave.