I've made corrections based on your feedback, and now the proof is rock solid. I've uploaded it to for peer review

Is this you?

My sides are now topped with pepperoni.

Oh my fucking God fuck off OP and stop avatar fagging

I bet you haven't even read Sipser yet you wannabe

>stop avatar fagging
This is my only criticism of your work here, OP.
Please download some new anime girl pictures so it isn't quite as obvious you're constantly spamming us with this shit.

Okay, does everyone agree that the man who posited P=NP is actually smart enough to describe the problem well enough so that someone else can solve it?

>faggot
Why the homophobic comic?

Everyone here has a valid opinion. I should write the proof more formally to handle the "nonsense" criticism.

I feel that I have solved the problem, and now I just have to write it clearly. The trick is that you can pass a sorting order around for a set that's too large to pass around. This sorting order can't be proven in polynomial time (because the set is too big), but it can be verified to be wrong in polynomial time.

The trick is only part of the paper, though. The rest of the paper is proving that you can't sort a set of superpolynomial size in polynomial time, which is really easy to prove but just takes a few pages.

I'm writing everything more formally now.

>This sorting order can't be proven in polynomial time (because the set is too big)
Oh my GOD just fuck off

You keep making the same exact mistake in every thread

What the fuck am I even doing on Veeky Forums talking to you right now. Whatever user I wish you luck but your paper isn't shit

Yes. My solution to P=NP was simply 0!>0

P=NP : 4 elements, 1 comparison
0!>0 : 4 elements, 1 comparison, 1 operator (factorial)

The trick of the paper is being able to write a P=NP that another human being wouldn't go, "Why would I care about your opinion, now that the P God has gifted me this piece of paper that I can solve and I can do whatever I want polynomial."

1 polynomial = 1 problem
Polynomial(s) = problem(f(x))

P is No Problem, P is mathematically pure.

N is just an axis of rotation, so N = Integer.

= is interval comparator

I wonder if you might be interested in **my** P!=NP proof.

If P = NP then for each oracle [math]P^B = NP^B[/math]. But this is not true by pic related.
So P is not equal to NP.

...

What is it with cranks and bullet point proofs?
Victor used to write his shit the exact same way.
They can't have possibly learned this behaviour from anywhere, nobody normal writes like that.

The proof is not a proof but a word_outline of a proof_sketch.
We assume the Meth8/VL4 apparatus and method.
The designated _proof_ value is T for tautology; F contradiction; C falsity; N truth(ity).
The result table of 16-values is row-major and horizontal
We test the only equation in the text as Eq. 1.1.
Eq. 1.2 as rendered is not tautologous. Hence the proof is not confirmed, but refuted.
(x

>that schizophreniac still didn't fix his trivial mistake
>he still can't see the 2 other mistakes

Maybe present them not as mistakes but as modules to be imported into the final P=NP proof.

Obviously if OP is nice enough to put this here, if you just gave him the so-called 'elementary' help he asks for you guys could totally add in some ;godmode; cheats.

For example, dear OP, please retain my identity as Simon = 1, sex god and master psychic.

Allow me to convince anyone to perform sexual acts on top of their daily routine/activities, but never to their detriment or to the destruction of familial generation.

請允許我說服任何人在他們的日常生活/活動的頂部進行性行為,但從來沒有自己的損害或家族一代的破壞。

Why don't you just do your proof in Coq?

I have it bookmarked
keep laughing

you think i have some random "this can't be done in polynomial time" in the paper, don't you? there's none of that, i was just paraphrasing what a huge chunk of the paper implies

This is definitely the proof we have been waiting for! It is right for sure! Go, senpai!

Well, I love you OP. Have all my maths!

n + n = P/N

m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1 + 2 = P/N^7

If I am reading your paper correctly, the problem you claim cannot be solved in polynomial time, can in fact be solved in polynomial time. Not in the rhetorical sense that I might conceivably have a way to do this and you can't prove otherwise, but in the sense that I literally have an actual algorithm right here that is polynomial-time. This is possible due to a clever shortcut I have found exploiting some specific property in the details of your problem statement (again, assuming I interpreted the details correctly).

I am not going to tell you what that algorithm is, or what trick it exploits. If you do not believe me based on this unsubstantiated claim, I cannot blame you; but it is true nonetheless. I am not telling you the details for didactic reasons; I have my doubts that will actually work, but I can at least try.

My clever shortcut is based on some property of your problem statement being particularly convenient, and changing the right details of your problem would shoot down my cleverness real quick. But your proof seems to claim that what I actually did is impossible, *without depending on those details that make or break your example*. That means that your paper isn't actually proving anything about the problem, but just claiming something without proof; for the reasoning is unchanged even for cases where it does not hold.

Now, you could dodge this situation by writing a new paper, involving a new problem, that does not have the opportunity I abused in my algorithm. But the real problem here is simply that your Part 3 doesn't actually prove anything; rather, it claims something with no solid justification, as evidenced by the fact that it's actually false for the case your describe here. Once you understand that part, you may stand to make some actual progress.

Imbecile: numbered ceiling; VSIM

Website: memecenter.com/search/1 1=2
Usage: Divided by 0
Results: As Expected

1st USER FEDBACK
m3m3 1 + 1 = 2
imba ceil() function!

DEVELOPER PUBLIC COMMENTS
#Physical ceiling's need to be nerfed in Japan(easy). Man killed himself in the morning by standing up straight without looking at the Sun like any good Japanese person would understand.

I accept this proof, retroactively and recursively. I also agree with the person who typed this message in response to the claims presented in this thread.

{Tempi}[Tradition](al)+Chinese/Lily Add'em = {T}[Tradition(al)]+1_Butterfly["'.,;:... S. Vagus]+Countress/s.

Morgan = Mógēn = More Generator Mistress's = 更多發電機女主人的
西蒙·,西門,西蒙,人妖 = Simon = Rényāo = Generational Counter-Stealer = 一代反盜版, 代反偷竊者

Olivier Cosgrove, Lily Add'em, Butterfly Earl/Countress
奧利維亞·科斯格羅夫,莉莉阿德姆,蝴蝶(伯爵)夫人
奥利维亚·科斯格罗夫,莉莉阿德姆,蝴蝶伯爵夫人

Simon T Cosgrove, T/Cosgrove+(Simon), {S}.^VAGUS
西蒙Ť科斯格羅夫,&/科斯格羅夫(西門),{}鼠尾草

Can you explain how you invented power keys in more detail for people not familiar with CS? I think I can show some pretty nice results using your proof.

知識管理+服務器上 = Knowledge Management Server

fuck off dumb chink

Stfu and gtfo you keep making the same fucking mistake you are not as smart as you think you are and you are actual nigger tier in terms of IQ.

>If P = NP then for each oracle P^B=NP^B.
Ha, this is false. This is a so-called relativization proof, as it compares p vs np relative to an oracle. This can't work, as there exist an oracle O st P^O = NP^O and an oracle O' st P^O' =/= NP^O'.

So, if your proof would be correct, I'd be able to prove P=NP as well, which is a contradiction

I'm white as fuck dude, but hey, China China China Enrigsh Engirsh Engirhs; Girls For TALL, STRAPPING BOYS OF ASIAN HERITAGE!

Oh, it's you Simon. Didn't recognize you with all the moonscript.

Your English Moon Runes Are Also Interesting, but I'd still rather you talk talk talk talk. Type, you guys type out a post.

商量商量商量商量。 类型,你们键入了一个职位。
商量商量商量商量。 類型,你們鍵入了一個職位。

一個人族貨幣
一个人族货币