I'm still working on rewriting this in formal language. Please look at the logic and reasoning, and not the language...

I'm still working on rewriting this in formal language. Please look at the logic and reasoning, and not the language. Thanks.

1. Let A be a set of n integers of length o. For example: {...1101, ...0100, ...0111}.

2. Let f be an oracle such that f(B) reduces a set B of integers under xor in O(1) time. For example: {...1101, ...0100, ...0111} → ...1101 ⊕ ...0100 ⊕ ...0111 → ...1110. This proof is not dependent on the oracle, and it is only used for simplification.

3. Let the problem be: find subset C of A such that f(C) = 0.

4. The problem is NP (the solution can be verified in polynomial time; once you have C, call f(C) in O(1) time).

5. It is well understood that if x = a ⊕ b it is impossible to calculate the values of x, a, or b without knowing the values of all the others.

6. As such, given x, there is no algorithm that can select a from a set without also selecting b. That’s because the values of a or b can only be known after performing f({x, a}) = b, f({x, b}) = a, or f({a, b}) = x. You ALWAYS need to know 2 of the 3 to calculate the 3rd! The same goes for x = a ⊕ b ⊕ c; you need to know 3 of the 4 to calculate the 4th! 4 of the 5 to calculate the 5th, and so on!

7. The same logic applies to all subsets of A. Until you perform f(C) = 0, you gain no information about C. This is a very, very, very well understood property of xor, which is why it's used in cyphers. If f(B) ≠ 0, you are given no information about C!! Think about it: if x = a ⊕ b, but you don't know that, what does x ≠ a ⊕ c tell you? Nothing!!

8. As such, the only way to find C is with trial and error, which takes O( 2^n ) time.

10. Therefore, P ≠ NP.

0x51B4908DdCD986A41e2f8522BB5B68E563A358De

Other urls found in this thread:

vixra.org/abs/1712.0598
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Hey. Stop using my waifu for your nerd threads.
Thanks

>This is a very, very, very well understood property of xor, which is why it's used in cyphers

If the numbers are completely random, a xor cipher is just as good as any other form of encryption. The problem is when the numbers are not random, such as in language, where you can use probabilities to crack it.

Let the bits be arrange in and o x n grid. This is clearly a system of equations in the field Z/2Z aka GF(2) and you're looking for a nonzero vector in it's null space. Solve with Gaussian elimination. QED.

The system can't be solved in poly time.

No, it literally is [math]Ax=b[/math]. Also, please put on a trip so I can filter your threads.

Just did it in cubic time nigger.

Literally nothing special about XOR in this regard. You could use c=m+k mod 2^n; XOR is just easier since it's done bitwise. Here because it's bitwise, we can linearize the system of equation and solve it trivially.

>7. The same logic applies to all subsets of A. Until you perform f(C) = 0, you gain no information about C. This is a very, very, very well understood property of xor, which is why it's used in cyphers. If f(B) ≠ 0, you are given no information about C!! Think about it: if x = a ⊕ b, but you don't know that, what does x ≠ a ⊕ c tell you? Nothing!!

if x ⊕ junk = a ⊕ c and junk = e ⊕ d then x = a ⊕ c ⊕ e ⊕ d

Finding "junk = e ⊕ d" would be extremely lucky.

Which is why you go bit by bit systematically with Gaussian elimination.

>the time when a fucken anonymous poster spammed his proof on this board

>imagine implies CS majors learn linear algebra like Gaussian elimination
>OP clearly doesn't even know Gaussian elimination

>0x51B4908DdCD986A41e2f8522BB5B68E563A358De

$50 says this is OP's real name XOR'ed with a meme phrase.

kill yourself

...

Before I start parsing this - what's your background & expertise?

>this brainlet is actually being serious and can't see where his proof is wrong despite wasting 5 years on this shit

What's your source for them "wasting 5 years"? To me it seems OP is posting their work for preliminary peer-review and also to leave a timestamped tag proving their authorship.

To the uninitiated - the P vs NP problem asks whether the calculation of proof of work being computable within polynomial amounts of time (that is, taking a few nanoseconds or minutes instead of hundreds or thousands of years) means that the work itself is also computable in polynomial time.

Even if OP's work falls short of legit proving P ≠ NP (which is the most likely case, let's be real), they may have still actually made a creative step in the way we wage our approach toward the problem. Say, their work might inspire a new optimization technique that reduces the computational cost of our approximation to the optimal solution, or increases its computational speed, or reduces its margin of error. Even a modest-sounding improvement of 0.01% in one of these might bring about improvements implications

>implications
Great ending to your lesson there, you distracted dumbass.

>You're now aware that Descartes is a girl in the lower right box

>First pick-up line you try?

>I'm still working on rewriting this in formal language.

That's a nice thing to do. I wrote my thing up "formally" but not really in the way that the jargonphiles would consider formal. When I was a student I saw that the breadth of ideas in mathematical physics was painfully, atrociously narrow so my research program was dedicated adding breadth. Where there were no new ideas, I described a new idea an said, in effect, "Here is something else you guys could convert into your journal acceptable jargon language that has no place in physics other in journals, it certainly isn't used in classes, talks, or textbooks, but if you want something else to write about in the journal jargon the here is a new idea for you that I have described in a way that should be acceptable to journals, probably would be if the author's name was different, and is in the style of classroom, material, talk material, and book material."

>The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
> vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

>OP's """work"""
idiot

I concede that I can't parse it by myself because I lack the inclination to learn logical notation. Is it just some nonsensical meme? Enlighten me please Senpai

Why does this weeb have three fucking threads up right now

What you have here is just the subset sum problem, but with xor instead, which is fine. Easy to show that it's reduceable. You don't need to mess around with the Oracle. Xor is a doable in O(n) time between two strings, so each set of strings you do is basically O(n^2).

You need to formally prove 6. This isn't actually difficult since it's the same things as sums. If you have two variables, you have infinite solutions when it's just sums. XOR isn't too different.

Remember that complexity classes rely on decision problems. The goal is not to find which set creates 0, just to answer 100% accurately the "yes or no" question: "Does there exist a set which results in 0". You haven't proven that the decision problem can't be done in P time.

I suggest that you approach this like a proof by contradiction. "Suppose I had a way to do it in P time, then I could do do (this/that/the other) and doing those things is a contadiction in logic. Therfore it can't be done in P time".

>logical notation
the post is trash, the notation can be understood by a freshman and the words are just buzzwords thrown around