Let's prove the P vs NP problem. One word per line:

brainlets

niggers

wtf

, then

by the above,

fuck it

, since

all

trivial

as is known

10^200

t. jacob barnett

supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

never once seen a good thread based on this concept

because niggers always ruin evrthn

Given an infinite number of these threads we will prove P = NP.

N=1

thus

In conclusion

yes, but we will also prove P != NP

trivial

N = 1

QED

References

Wikipedia

Quantum

statics

iff

manifold

we will prove either p = np
or p != np, I don't think both.

numberphile

NUMBERWANG!

therefore P = NP

my random proof generator has proved P != NP before, here it is

axiom 1: P != NP
QED

The rest of the proof is trivial and left up as an excercise for the reader.

I left out the gay ones

If let centipedes n-dimensional Gauss be Homology, -1/12 Wildberger suppose brainlets wtf, then by the above, fuck it, since all trivial as is known 10^200 supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. N=1, thus in conclusion (trivial) N=1. Quantum statics IFF manifold, numberphile numberwang! Therefore P = NP
QED references - wikipedia
-Veeky Forums, 2017

Now where should we get it published?

send it to major news outlets and tell them Veeky Forums consists of only racial minorities

You're using the wrong computational model.If you use the correct model, it trivially holds that P=NP, see arxiv.org/abs/1603.06018 . Do note that we can make additional assumptions to the current flawed model from which it follows that N=/=NP, see win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP/Deolalikar.pdf .

If any midly serious place will publish it, it will probably be accepted here: win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm . Basically, if a P vs. NP proof isn't mentioned there, it doesn't exist (yet), or simply too bad to entertain.

>N=1, thus in conclusion (trivial) N=1.

Fields medal when?

complexity

Gold

10^200 fag please go

Nigger