P != NP

arxiv.org/pdf/1708.03486.pdf
Proof that P != NP just came out

What do you think Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

arxiv.org/abs/1602.04781
arxiv.org/pdf/1708.03486.pdf
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0957155817710427
youtube.com/watch?v=YX40hbAHx3s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems#cite_note-6
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

This isn't a vega benchmark

>linking directly to the pdf

"proof" came out last year too

arxiv.org/abs/1602.04781 Still not been validated

>arxiv
so a dead paper nobody wanted to publish?
>38 pages
It is way too late for me to read that shit.
Has anyone read through it?

N = 1
whats so difficult about this

I took a quick look and it seems surprisingly promising. Will probably be invalidated because of an error but there's always a chance.

It's wrong, nothing to see here move along.

This is bait, right?
This has to be bait.

Dude;
P=NP , divide with P
1=N , for all P = R\{0}

Problem solved. No need for a 38 page paper.

>mfw will never be intelligent enough to understand half the shit on the article.
>why live?

P=NP
P/P=N
1=N
Why can't you guys do math?

What's your current education level?

Theoretical crap, who cares

P=NP == (if not n == p)==False

p=np is every programmers wet dream, they just dont get that it is the prime equation which should be

>ground breaking research
>arXiv
Pick one

senior undergraduate at the shitty school that I could afford

>posting a pdf on an image board
Back to

idea>platform
mate u should get this

no.
You never publish ground breaking research on arxiv because its not peer reviewed. Its for preprints only. Everyone knows that, except the crackpots of course.

>arxiv.org/pdf/1708.03486.pdf

I mean, Grigori Perelman's papers solving the Poincaré conjecture were also published to arXiv.

Its not that hard you only have to specialize in that part of the field. Thats why you have so many branches.

Everybody loves pay walls

As much as I also love to hate journals and their outdated practices, I have to admit that they do add lots of value due to peer reviews. At least you know you aren't reading complete nonsense if it is published in a (reputable) journal.

All physics papers pass from arxiv, retard

If you actually knew mathematics and discrete theoretical mathematics, you'd know this is a trollpaper.

...

>Meanwhile in the liberal arts
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0957155817710427

So, ignoring this paper, would it be better for p=np to be true, or p≠np?

As I understand, RSA encryption is dependent on the assumption that p≠NP.

Always better for P = NP. Protein folding, etc. would be trivialized. Encryption we can figure out later.

p=np would be much, much more exciting

>dumb frogposter can't comprehend basic math
I'm not surprised.

None of this is true because knowing P = NP doesn't mean at all we can find a constructive way to transform NP Turing machines into P ones (same way a basis exists for every infinite dimensional vector space but we can't always build one explicitly).
So it really doesn't matter, serious scientists already stopped caring about this problem.

>7185▶
>

You're *fucking* retarded if you believe this.

If we can prove P = NP, then a serious amount of effort will be spent transforming our difficult NP problems into P ones for the betterment of humanity.

>being this much of a brainlet

p=np future is so much more interesting

Yeah, like a serious amount of effort is spent finding a basis for C(0,1), right?
>being this much of a brainlet
Right back at you.

>My main point, however, is that I don't believe that the equality \(P = NP\) will turn out to be helpful even if it is proved, because such a proof will almost surely be nonconstructive. Although I think \(M\) probably exists, I also think human beings will never know such a value. I even suspect that nobody will even know an upper bound on \(M\). - Donald Knuth
kys retarded tripfag

I bet it wasn't even typeset in LaTeX.

Proving that P=NP might've provided us with means to transform NP problems in P problems. A proof is much more than a yes/no answer, especially for those problems we spent years trying to solve.

and he got a lot of trouble for it.
Not to mention that he is Grigory Perelman, who was already well known before, that he had colaborators, and that he publised morsels of his work before.
Neither he nor his work came out of the blue sky.

Open access and peer review are not mutually exclusive

paper does not equal ground breaking research

>Proving that P=NP might've provided us with means to transform NP problems in P problems
I think it takes a lot of optimism to say that "P=NP" is the same as "we found how to solve every NP-complete problem in a polynomial time". It is true the latter implies the former, I just don't think that's how it's going to get proven.

Every year you have loonies claiming they have proved or disproved P=NP. Don't get your hopes up.

I once talked to a madman poster here who claimed he solved P=NP because the human brain was capable of doing so in a certain way.

Absolutely mad.

Are you implying he was wrong?

p != np because by solving it you prove the opposite

I couldn't prove he was wrong but he made me look retarded when I brought up the idea.

Essentially he was just putting in his own subjective numbers and making sense in his own head but it didn't quite correlate to objective reality.

How do you even decrease certain levels of the human brain the measurable numbers whilst increasing others to lead to such genius?

>he made me look retarded
That's more than half the battle desu senpai

>baitfag thinks he's smarter than every institution
I'm not even surprised.

>for all P = R\{0}
>=
0.5/bait for effort.

Why would you not link directly to the PDF? How else would people read the article?

>muh pdf exploit virus

Don't use PDF readers that execute embedded scripts.

oldfag here. been here all summer.
it's more a /sci/ thing but I think the joke was that these sort of threads on Sup Forums never link the salsa.

>someone just proved PNP!
>what do you think /sci/????
>no link

youtube.com/watch?v=YX40hbAHx3s

Here you go fellow retard

So... ArXiv is supposed to be a repository for papers before they are published to a peer-reviewed journal. This is nice to see, but I've seen quite a few people claim that they have a proof for one way or another. It will be relevant when someone gets their proof past peer review.

P is not an number of any sort, real or complex, rational or irrational. NP is not the multiplication of P by some scalar value N. P and NP are both the names of sets. Specifically, P is the set of all problems solvable by a deterministic Turing Machine in polynomial time, and NP is the set of all problems solvable by a non-deterministic Turing Machine in polynomial time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems#cite_note-6

p=np sounds fun but is probably impossible

Wrong for reasons that I don't understand. Historically, P = NP (?) is the Cold Fusion of computing research. The problem is intuitively obvious but technically insane. The sort of person that proves it won't have any impact on the practical world and will likely reject all accolades due to autism. It will be a beautiful result of the highest order and will lead to new lines of esoteric research that won't give me a waifu sexbot, mitigate climate change or colonize the solar system.

Pic related; in the best case.

Looks legit.

real ycom hours

Proving P=NP basically goes hand-in-hand with solving every NP-complete problem in polynomial time, because every NP-complete problem reduces to every other NP-complete problem in polynomial time. Proving P=NP would involve finding a polynomial time algorithm for some NP-hard problem; a proof by any other means would fail to fully prove P=NP, because the algorithm which runs in polytime cannot probably solve an NP-complete problem unless we have such a mapping. Therefore, given a proof of P=NP, all we have to do from that point is take any NP-complete problem, transform it (again, still in polytime) to that solved NP-complete problem, and then transform the solution back.

Those are wrong because P = NP.

Donald Knuth believes so.

who cares about that useless problem?
lol

the solution is interesting only if P=NP

if not then it is like proving that there are no unicorns on earth. i'm sure the proof is technically interesting but it will not affect anything in the 'real world'.

>the solution is interesting only if P=NP
And if it is a constructive prove.

>if not then it is like proving that there are no unicorns on earth
It would also be interesting if P vs. NP was independent from our current axiom systems, in which case, you get to decide.