A Proof that P != NP

A Proof that P != NP.

If P = NP, then P and NP share every property. But by pic related this is not the case.

Other urls found in this thread:

ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-842112
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem#Results_about_difficulty_of_proof
fs23.formsite.com/viXra/files/f-2-2-9844912_DerLb6PT_PNP.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Can you write it in Coq?

Can you suck my Coq?

you sure got him

Proof:
Suppose P=NP
Then P/N=P
So P must equal 0 but thats not true so P=/=NP
QED

You're too late. ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-842112

my heuristic is that if a paper claims to proof N != NP or N = NP I assume it to be trash and forget about it

What about P = N?

this is a natural proof, which can't prove P ? NP

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem#Results_about_difficulty_of_proof

also, anyone who mentions Coq is trolling because you'd have to literally engineer a computer in set theory instead of just saying "this is a Turing machine"

why are there so many fucking people trying to prove p?np here

you arent going to do it. this isn't some "im gunna prove them wrong" comeback story. anything you could come up with by yourself is something that has been thought of before or reasonably dismissed by someone much less of a brainlet

but i have proven it. what part is wrong?

fs23.formsite.com/viXra/files/f-2-2-9844912_DerLb6PT_PNP.pdf

The O.P. is literally the Baker-Gill Solovay theorem. He just interpreted it to mean P!=NP because he thinks [math]P^B = NP^B[/math] for an oracle B is a "property" of P and NP, rather than defining a new class, or is trolling.

Submit it for peer review. You can do it senpai!

yes just because i dont want to read through your proof for the 600th time and tell you step by step all the major problems with it, and how fundamentally you aren't proving anything here

this proves that your proof is 100% correct, good job user

the fact that you posting your "proof by shitpost" method of solving p?np on Veeky Forums and not anywhere else really solidifies the autism

i fixed the errors everyone pointed out last time. there are no more errors

imagine if i took a massive wet shit into a plastic bag, went around showing it to people. they would gag and i'd ask, "what's gross about it"? they would say everything, and i would ask them to point out what is specifically gross about it, what is wrong with it? they would point out the bits of corn, and i would take the bits of corn out of the plastic bag filled with diarrhea and keep showing it to people and keep taking out the bits that were particularly disgusting

eventually the bag will just be this homogeneously brown bag of wet diarrhea fundamentally disgusting with no part really more disgusting than any other

that is what your "proof" is at this point

it's a processes with many levels. i'm trying to use the internet to proof read it, but everyone just has this knee jerk reaction to presume that it's another "look, here is a one way function!" proof, which it's not.

i haven't had any good critical feedback for the last few revisions, just been adding comments on the parts people get confused at

there should be 0 confusion because it's formal language, but people can't read apparently

ok, so point out some corn, just one more time. i really need to understand what's confusing you, because the proof is legit

Why don't u try math stack exchange. Ask something like "What is wrong with this attempt to show that P!=NP"

>what's confusing me
this is your biggest issue

see a psychiatrist

Wow. Surely no one has ever thought of that before. Fagtron 3000.

how about you take 5 minutes to actually typeset it properly

Hey, total lay person here. I dropped out of college after calc 3 and don't remember any math now.

So if this proof or someone else's proof in a century turned out to be right would it matter?

Could you design a faster computer or a more powerful jet engine? Or is the only practical value getting the fields medal and having bragging rights?

ok, i'll do that

>i haven't had any good critical feedback for the last few revisions, just been adding comments on the parts people get confused at
Alternatively, it could be the case that you did get good critical feedback, and YOU are getting confused by the parts you keep not fixing. Have you considered that possibility?

if you proved P=NP then it would be kind of a big deal.

If you proved P!=NP it would be 100% for bragging rights.

Don't doubt yourself! You can do it senpai!

Except a written proof of that size can't be made homogenous like that. If it's fallacious, you should always be able to pick something out of it.

P=enis

Big if true.

just end yourself please, you can't possibly be that retarded

Yes you’re misunderstanding, when did I say you eventually wouldn’t be able to pick something out of it?

>also, anyone who mentions Coq is trolling
Ha, you're just mad you can't formalise your "proof".

Also, you still appear to be unable to accept that you can be wrong even after changing the bag of shit you call a proof for the gazillionth time.

I sure hope you're an elaborate troll, because otherwise, you'd be the saddest crank I've seen so far. (and I've engaged with quite a few of them)

...