You mad?

You mad?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=U40bWY6oVtU
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The answer is 42 duh
>as people have spent years of their lives thinking of how to even approach the problem

N=1
Nice try fag

(Inclusive) OR:
P = 0.
0 = N * 0

>Treating P vs NP as an algebraic equation
Wow, such an original joke.

>implying 99% of Sup Forums would even get the reference

Don't overestimate people here. Maybe they genuinely believe that's how it works. Remember we have tons of children from Sup Forums

>set algebra isn't algebra
Math illiterates pls leave

>Remember we have tons of children from Sup Forums
they need to go back to the time out corner where they belong

user, please. It was obvious what I was saying from context.
The people saying P = 0, N = 1 and whatnot were obviously not talking about the algebra of sets.

>0 or 1 as the neutral element of a product of sets
no u

>let's argue notation

Nobody uses 0 and 1 for sets though.

>let's argue popularity

>Lets strawman

>let's shitpost

What set is 1 supposed to stand for to satisfy P = 1 x P?

meant to reply to

Bascially you are just plain stupid.


P is definately not NP, we just can't prove it (yet). But if you dig into traveling salesman problem or some NP hard stuff, you will understand that there are some problems where it's just impossible to solve it in polynomial time. It's just very hard to prove it scientifically.

the reason we can't prove it isn't is because it is

then prove it is
because that's actually quite straight forward

Define ×.

If × = ∪, then 1 = O.

If × = ∩, then 1 = P.

The reason we can't prove it is is because it isn't.

>define x
the cross product since we're talking set algebra, duh

Look, I will break it down for you:

Imagine you have to sort a pile of money with the heigths of 10 meter in 30 seconds.
The pile is really big, so even if you go full speed you can sort only a tiny fraction of it. Than you realize that many super fast guys already cmae up with brilliant way to sort it, but they still managed to sort a tiny fraction of it. Some clever guys have estimated that even if you had supernatural speed and some fancy hacks we don't know about yet, you would still need about one month to sort it. It's totally out of question that you can't sort it in weeks, let alone days. But the question is if you can sort it in 30 seconds - which is plain absurd. You will imediately understand that it's absolutely not possible for a human to sort it in this amount of time.

But can you prove it? Can you show a method to prove scientifically that it's not possible?

Ever newbie thinks HE is the chose one that will get the fields medal because he will find the flaw and prove that P and NP are the same. It's alomst like a running gag.

Then learn some actual methods people came up with to tackle NP problems. See how brilliant those methods are, see how much magic they use to shrink the time. But it's still lightyears from solving a NP problem in P.

I really can't describe it any better, maybe just solve the knapsack problem. It's a simple one and we already have so many brilliant algorithms for it. Learn em and you will get why it can't get solved in P time.

p=np
p-np=0
p(1-n)=0

sol 1:
p=0

sol 2:
1-n=0
n=1

>cross product
>set algebra

>He dosent have a deterministic solution for TSM and SAT
literally pajeet tier

Hello I am from the future, we have already solved this long time ago lol keke

HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS

This would be tremendous news, why would anyone be mad?

Tell us how to do it. Then society will progress further, and you will feel as though you have travelled into the future when you return, but you will not be any older.

P = NP

I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this post is too small to contain.

With the proof you should able to crack Sup Forums's passwords quickly and increase the character limit.

This is such a bad way to frame the problem I am literally shaking.

My point was to illustrate an example where you will get a "gut feeling" about what's possible (and what is not possible) by trying it. Even without a "100% proof" we can still make claims and prediction about the world.

From this post, you have shown that you know NOTHING about complexity theory.

For the record, P is in NP. Any problem which you can solve in polynomial time is, in fact, a problem in NP, and you are therefore solving a problem in NP by solving it. Also, the fact that we do not currently have polynomial-time algorithms solving NP-complete problems does not in any way indicate that P cannot be equal to NP. A few examples: we only relatively recently found that primality testing was in P, which we had previously thought unlikely; we thought graph isomorphism to be potentially NP-intermediate and potentially even NP-hard, but last year a computer scientist gave a quasi-polynomial time algorithm solving the problem.

Be honest: why are you talking about something and pretending to be an expert on a topic that you clearly know nothing about?

You are not clever for making an 4th grade algebra joke.

i dont watch big bang theory sorry

It's not a joke.

Not a joke. Kill yourself.

>Be honest: why are you talking about something and pretending to be an expert on a topic that you clearly know nothing about?
I can answer that for him. Sup Forums promotes dick waving. It's like Sup Forums, but Sup Forums tries to prove they're rich/smart/skilled/etc. It's pathetic.

>Can you show a method to prove scientifically
Nobody was taking him seriously anyways.

There are pretty sophisticated heuristic LSAT solvers that make many NP problems pretty fast

The first half of this video is a pretty good intro:
youtube.com/watch?v=U40bWY6oVtU

We're not having another three hundred years of this shit