Is there any place I can anonymously publish a math proof...

Is there any place I can anonymously publish a math proof? I've been working on a problem for 5 years and finally solved it. I'm pretty sure no one will take me seriously until they read the paper, though.

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/r/MathJokes/comments/7qz651/proof_that_p_np/
stackoverflow.com/questions/39385971/how-to-know-if-a-binary-number-divides-by-3?rq=1
sharelatex.com/project/59bb96aa82babc74ecc54338?&nocdn=true
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_correlation_inequality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

You came to the right place.

Believe me, if I had just spent five years solving a problem, I'd come to Veeky Forums for advice about publishing. So, yea, I completely believe what you're saying.

What's the proof, OP? I am genuinely interested.

here
reddit
stackexchange

>here
Don't do it. It is fucking anonymous and this place has a lot of baggage. Not Veeky Forums itself but because the public front of Veeky Forums is /b/ and /pol/ you really do not want your work associated with it. Common people won't really understand "Hey, there are different boards with different cultures" and even if they did, this board is 50% /pol/ infested so if they gave you the benefit of the doubt and came here to see what the culture is the first post they'd see is "BLACK PEOPLE ARE SUBHUMAN".

>reddit
A valid option, but not optimal. No one is really going to read a reddit proof.
>stackexchange
Same as reddit

OP, not gonna lie. The only way anyone will actually read whatever you wrote is if you get it into a journal, so do that.

You can post it here anonymously, obviously.

graffiti it on a bathroom stall

I fully understand that a dozen Pajeets a day "solve" the Reinmann hypothesis, and it's silly to post here for advice, ever.

I'm just looking for someplace to have my paper reviewed. I'm not looking for any credit either... so I'm looking to publish it anonymously.

It's a millennium problem, but you'd laugh at which one so I won't bother trying to explain.

Oh, and I'd like to add a little more to this: If you do not think you can get your work published and decide to go the reddit route then hear this alternative:

Personal blog. Just post it in a personal blog. I prefer this because if you post it on reddit then it is kinda like sending a girl an unwanted dickpic. Kind of a dick move. But a public blog is yours so it is acceptable. You aren't really pushing it on other people's faces and then if you find a way to popularize the problem in math discord channels or maybe even reddit itself then send a link to your blog to someone who is already interested.

arxiv is better than anything posted thus far but it is still not good. if your proof is novel and the problem is significant then get it published, but i somewhat doubt it is since you are asking Veeky Forums of all places for advice on how to publish.

The problem is that someone else will take the prize and I strongly want to keep the precedence of rejecting prizes for math problems.

Holy shit, what the fuck is everyones problem?

She can just POST it here on Veeky Forums. She's asking for someone to give her feedback on her proof, not to be the fucking judge/jury/executioner.

But if you haven't PROVEN it, then it isn't a PROOF.

You have to have SOME belief in your CONVICTIONS, OP.

If people are assholes for money and it is proven to be true, then obviously you are smarter than them because YOU did it for the sake of helping your fellow human.

Yang-Mills existence and mass-gap problem solution: 4

No one is getting into arxiv without connections. That is just a fact of life. It is much easier to put it in a journal because then you just have to find the lowest piece of shit journal and put it there. And if OP's result then odds are he won't have to settle for lowest piece of shit, but maybe reach up to "unpopular but meh" journal.

>She
Please stop with this meme. The chance of OP being a woman is infinitesimal. It was fun the first 50 times this meme was used, but now by the quadrillionth time it really has lost its punch.

Am I supposed to reply to this message? Both posters are fucking 'Anonymous', so there is no PROOF provided in this thread.

4 = 2 x 2 / 2 = 0

I'm saying that someone else would copy it if I posted it here because the approach really is novel and it's trivial to verify mathematically. It uses very well understood properties of primes to prove things about computational complexity. It's completely axiomatic, too.

This is what I was looking for, thanks.

[math]4 = 2 x (2 / 2)[/math] OR [math]2 x (2 / 2) =
4[/math]

Y'all done now?

Arxiv.org requires you to 'know someone who knows someone who will vouch for you'. I think they have some token validation system.

Better to publish under your own name and be an underrated genius. Someday in 20 years some researcher will find your proof and suck your dead dick. Just make sure you have ironclad proof of your work before you submit it anywhere in case someone tries to steal it.

It's from American Dad lol
You my n***a tho

Aw. That's what I was worried about. I'll probably just post on reddit, then. Looks like I'll finally be making an account there.

The fuck is the difference between posting on reddit or Veeky Forums if you want ANONYMOUS posting.

If you are going to post on reddit then you're obviously just karma whoring.

Because of the Pajeets who will just copy it and try to claim credit for the $1M prize. I care about continuing the precedence.

The precedence of stealing money? British Imperialists stole national treasures from India that wasn't there, so how far back you want to take your so-called 'precedence'?

Dude, if you really got 1M$ tier math then why not take the prize and donate it to something important? For example, you could get really sneaky and accept the million dollars and then donate them to Perelman just to fuck with him.

Dude, you are posting in so many threads and your posts are worded in a way that makes it look like you rushed through them. Are you okay? Are you mentally stable? Please man, calm down. We have gone very far. Almost every board has their crazy serial killer but Veeky Forums is still clean. Don't go crazy on us like that.

Put me in the screencap when an amateur NEET correctly solves a millenium problem on Veeky Forums.

"YOU" Are the ones posting stupid shit and sending everyone else fucking crazy! I'm working DOUBLE SHIFT to cover for your asses!

Because YOU CUNTS Don't know how to be FUCKING CIVIL, I HAVE TO ACT LIKE A CRAZY ASSHOLE!

ALL BECAUSE YOU FUCKERS WANT TO FIGHT OVER SOMETHING CALLED "PRIZES" AND AN ACTUAL AUTISTIC MATHEMATICIAN WOULD READ THE WORD 'MILLENIUM' BEFORE THE WORD 'PRIZE' YOU FUCKING MORONS!

But OP has made it clear that he wishes to meme it out and reject the prize for the lulz. When he achieves this and quotes Veeky Forums as his inspiration then the wide world will know us as intellectual saints. We will be heros!

Yes... okay, let's see.

Pretty sure I can secure the logs for this website and then just publish the 'academic orgy blacklist' with every IP Veeky Forums has ever logged.

They'll just manually input my name into their 'fuck-senseless' database.

I really don't understand how there are so many mostly sane people who think they've solved hundred year old problems.
I understand if you're some schizophrenic who mentally can't distinguish between world salad and a proof of BSD but how the fuck can a regular person (THOUSANDS of regular people) who knows nothing think they can just waltz in and use trivial methods to solve a problem that has stumped an entire community of genius mathematicians for decades?
The level of conceit is really bizarre.

You will eventually want the glory if you are right. You are going down a very tricky path. People don't want to get "scooped", but at the same time, you also need to be right enough, often enough, that you don't get dismissed as a crank. The greatest all-time scoop in the history of the sciences, Cardano scooping Tartaglia, occurred exactly because of an expectation of secrecy and sitting on whatever it is, rather than just spitting it out. Reality doesn't work that way. Reality is waiting to be known, and any one knower, communicating same, will do.

So there is a tension between crankery, and publishing ASAP. History suggests that one should err on the side of publishing ASAP, perhaps being wrong, but still making pertinent insights into whatever the thing is. Historians of mathematics sift through this stuff and assess: "well he didn't do that thing right, but he was on the right track and eventually a later dude got it completely right."

If I personally were in a position where I felt that I really had something, this is what I would do: I would open up a blog or personal website of some kind, state my results, and qualify that I may have made mistakes (as I deem it necessary, or not). I would timestamp the shit and physically document the website creation/page creation independently of whatever language might be on the page(s) themselves. These would be my notes toward a proper academic article.

Your presumed conceit is literally the problem, and your grandmother says, "I Taught You Wrong, And I Am Ashamed Of My Grandchild."

My Grandmother Says, "Slap That Cunt Harder. Men Really Hard Difficult In Other Countries/Cultures."

Jesus Christ. This is it. I am calling it right now. Simon Troy Cosgrove. Just like /r9k/ had their Elliot, Veeky Forums is soon going to get theirs too. This motherfucker is insane.

Remember the name everyone. Simon Troy Cosgrove. Now that I know there is no way back for you, Simon, my only words are:

Please don't make us look like pussies on encyclopedia dramatica. I am not saying get on the top of the leaderboard, but at least make it to the top 10. If anything, at least be better than the /co/ mas shooter. Really, Veeky Forums thinks we are retarded nerds but maybe you can show them what's what.

Also, please do not kill anyone who is:
>male
>hispanic
>in his 20s

Just asking for a friend.

Oh, dude, I know that you guys aren't retarded nerds.

Personally I hate that Veeky Forums has been labelled a 'wretched hive of scum and villainy', but it is NOT Veeky Forums's fault at all.

People just forgot that Veeky Forums users GROW UP.

Everything Grows Old, Not Everything Grows Up.

Those are the sort of words I was composing when I was fucking 12. Unsung Genius is like the hallmark of this website.

Basically wherever 'english speaking geniuses' can be found, it will be on Veeky Forums.

Intelligence is 'self-excluding from set identifiers for the betterment of the super-set'.

>Unsung Genius is like the hallmark of this website.
Yeah I know, shit sucks lol

OK, here's the proof:

reddit.com/r/MathJokes/comments/7qz651/proof_that_p_np/

I didn't previously have a reddit account so I couldn't post in the main math board. I think the joke board is fitting, though.

Fuck man. You really could not go through the hassle of Latexing a proper article with in-depth explanations and arguments?

Jesus fuck. Man, do me a favor. Do not mention Veeky Forums in that thread. We do not need this bad fucking press.

Why did you post that link on Veeky Forums? REDDIT IS A DIFFERENT FUCKING WEBSITE.

You LITERALLY could've asked the SAME QUESTIONS ON REDDIT AND GOTTEN A BETTER RESULT, MORONS.

You rejected MY Riemann-Zeta PROOF and I went and LEARNED FUCKING LATEX FOR IT JUST TO SATISFY YOU AUTISTIC SPERGLORD MATHEMATICIANS! SO SUCK A FUCKING DICK!

In the sake of fairness, literally 'every' mathematician refused me and told me 'hahaha, of course! Let me STEAL that idea.'

It's a very straightforward argument. I'd like to hear any criticisms other than it's very simple.

Someone here suggested reddit. I had to create an account, though. I didn't want to post it here because I'd lose track of the thread easily.

Anyway, what do you think of the proof?

Just publish under a pseudonym then. That's done all the time arts and entertainment, why shouldn't someone do so in maths?

What the fuck? Just push it onto GitHub. And then start shopping around your ideas. Your records on GitHub will show when you first published the idea.

Unfortunately it happened like once or twice so now lots of people think they could be next.

Hello, everyone!

I created an account here to post this. I know this will sound arrogant. If I'm wrong, sorry! I'm willing to work hard and improve until I get it right.

My post was automatically deleted from the math board so I'm posting it here instead. It's basically a meme, anyway.

I'd like to remain anonymous, though here's a public key (or is it an address?) just in case someone claims to be me.

0x51B4908DdCD986A41e2f8522BB5B68E563A358De

Anyway, consider the following NP-complete problem: given a set of primes greater than 2, does any subset have a product with a binary representation that only has on bits that are also on in a given integer?

Also consider: there is no correlation between an integer’s binary representation and its prime factors greater than 2. This is trivial to show: changing any bit changes every prime factor.

Therefore, the binary representation of the product of a subset in the problem gives no information about the binary representation of any other product of a subset in the problem.

Therefore, every subset must be checked to solve the problem.

Therefore, P ≠ NP.

My criticism is that you are using me like a fucking trained monkey, and YOUR MOTHERS RAISED YOU BETTER THAN THAT! But not Simon's, because she didn't actually WANT me at all.

You guys want me to start a mathematical 'who has the worst mother' contest? Because if you cunts do, I will make it my eternal mission to find you and kill you in the worst way that only an ARTIST can describe.

>This is trivial to show: changing any bit changes every prime factor.
I really hope for your own sake that you're trolling.

I posted it here:

Please, some feedback? I've been going over the proof for a few days and I'm not seeing any issues with it.

>there is no correlation between an integer’s binary representation and its prime factors greater than 2.
How do you prove that there is NO correlation? This is not trivial.

>But not Simon's, because she didn't actually WANT me at all.
WHAT THE FUCK MAN

PLEASE STOP. JUST STOP. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE LIKE THIS. PLEASE WHEN YOU COMMIT YOUR MASS SHOOTING DO NOT KILL EARLY 20'S HISPANIC MEN.

People do. Noether had a male pseudonym for correspondence with strangers.

*sigh* dude, I'm going to forget I even made that promise before I even muster the strength to fucking carry it out let alone find the words to do it.

>inb4 yfw synonyms and similes are two different things, and nobody taught the English language that.

Just get a post-it on your wall that says "Do not kill..." and what I told you.

I am just saying that when you start posting about how your mom did not love you in a fucking math thread that is when you know the train has gone off the rails. You are already too far gone. Just please do not kill me. I am just like you! We are friends, Simon. So do not kill me.

It's also not true, so this purported proof is definitely wrong.

Oh, are you human? Sorry.

BR = 1; Welcome To Humanity, Everyone.

Well, if anything, I've shown that's equivalent to saying P!=NP. That's at least a huge step, then?

Here's my reasoning: you change any one bit, and it must change every single factor. because changing a bit is just adding a factor of 2^-n, adding 1, then removing the factor of 2^-n. Adding 1 always changes every factor because of how modular arithmetic works.

Because every factor is changed every time you change a bit, then any single bit couldn't be correlated to any single (or group) of factors. The reverse is also true.

They are literally as uncorrelated as you could possibly get, by definition.

OK, that's good to know. Can you explain more?

*sigh*

0!>0 = TRUE
1 != 1 = FALSE

Mathematicians INFINITY circle-jerk complete.

1 Circle = 0
2 Circles = 1+1
3 Circles = 2!

Or whatever, christ. Maybe if mathematicians weren't so 'boo hoo' about programming taking away their livelihoods they would actually help.

For example, if the bit in the ones places is 1 then the number is odd and has an odd prime factor. There are other patterns, as well.

is this bait OP?

Holy SWEET MOTHERFUCKING JESUS.

Prime number 'divisble by itself and 1'

1/2 is a prime number

congrats everyone, your so fucking special to have figured out what the egyptians and every other ancient civilization knew ages ago.

There are divisibility tricks in binary just like in decimal as well. How do people who know what modular arithmetic is not know this?
For example a binary number is divisible by 3 iff the alternating sum of its digits is zero. It's not only correlated, it's completely deterministic.

2 is special because the base is 2. Any factors outside the base are hard to calculate because you need to consider every other bit.

There are no other patterns, specifically because flipping any bit changes every single prime factor.

Chill out dude, I was just trying to give the amateur an easy example. Regardless, the question is abiut the complexity of a factorization algorithm. ¿Is it easy to see what the complexity of performing those tricks is?

Graph Theory Restored.

yes

I can read backwards too, if you find 'that' so fucking impressive.

See
There are other patterns. Of course the factorization of a number is «deterministic» in the sense that the digits of a number in any base determine the factors but P vs NP is asking about the complexity of algorithms.

It's not bait. However, I can probably word this better:

"there is no correlation between an integer’s binary representation and its prime factors greater than 2."

There's a trick with counting bits:

stackoverflow.com/questions/39385971/how-to-know-if-a-binary-number-divides-by-3?rq=1

However, I was referring to specific bits being on or off. I'm thinking how of how this impacts the argument, if at all.

First create a Proof of Ownership (PoO) and Proof of Existence (PoE) in the Bitcoin blockchain and keep your private keys secret. Then just release it on arxiv and prepare for nobody to ever read it.

There hasn't really been an argument yet, just a vauge assertion about a "correlation", whatever that means exactly. In any case, there are always basic flaws in the premise of any of these crackpot proofs.

7 years of isolation in Russia for THIS!

Yeah, if you have to check every subset's product to see if it has the right bits on, then you have to check 2^n products.

Also, I know the subset sum problem is O(2^(n/2)). This is the exact same problem but the n is halved before we start by the way it's worded.

no, tell me which one. I've spent my fair share of time trying to solve them. I'm curious as to what you did. Post it on Arxiv and google around to see if anyone already has that solution
>she

>once or twice
Like who(m/st)?

Yes. Jacinta Alice Richardson Is THE Co-Author Of The Riemann-Zeta Function Proof.

sharelatex.com/project/59bb96aa82babc74ecc54338?&nocdn=true

don't worry, he lives in brisbane australia

See

So far the issue is the way I worded the fact that you can't determine the prime factors of n+1 from the prime factors of n.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_correlation_inequality

The guy was a statistician in his job but by no means a hardcore ivory tower academic.

>Troy Cosgrove
I know this is was off topic but did you read the /x/ post with the other namefag that claims to be the real Simon Troy Cosgrove? Your name gave me a chuckle

Fucking idiots. I live in Melbourne.

3/33 Davies Street.

Unit 3, Number 33 Davies Street, Brunswick, Melbourne, VIC, 3056, Australia, BLAH BLAH

Same guy dude.

First Name: Simon
Middle Name: Troy
Family/Last Name: Cosgrove

To think if find you outside of /x/ Holy crap this just gets better

> there is no correlation between an integer’s binary representation and its prime factors greater than 2
So, you're assuming the RH is false?

But you can, the question is whether you can do it "fast" in a sense you will never care to learn.

>there is no correlation between an integer having any single bit on and having any prime factor greater than 2.
Okay, maybe this is true, maybe not, but it's not the problem you were given. It's comically stupid to say that because one bit in isolation gives you no information all the bits together don't give you any either.

this

kek, why did you post this in math jokes?

I'm a software engineer, and that's where my error is. I know what complexity is.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization

I had presumed prime factorization was well known to be hard. Apparently, it's an unsolved problem, so my argument relies on presuming an unsolved problem.

So, I just have to prove factorization is hard to prove P!=NP.

Fuck.

see

Why? Why the FUCK does it matter?

You can literally just SPIT OUT PRIMES if you wanted with a simple fucking for loop in python, jesus.

What sort of purpose would THAT sort of program hold?

actually, that's what I've been working on. If I can solve the prime problem then maybe the RH will be proved and your proof would be valid.

It's easy to make a program that does it, but we have no way of predicting primes, only guessing and checking with sieves or some variation of them.

Does RH really imply that you can factor integers in polynomial time? RH is true, I think. But prime factorization requires a quantum computer, so it's not polynomial?

Someone REALLY needs to tell me why the fuck that matters, at all.

It is literally just N**0.5 in python.

I wrote those scripts fucking months ago.