Holy fuck senpai. I was working on this problem with integers, and I thought to myself, "Why don't I just spin these bitches over a modular wheel with prime numbers or some shit." So then I wrote a program that did that, and honestly, it was kind of slow. The brute force implementation outperformed it, but then I started increasing the search size, and holy fuck, my algorithm runs faster as the inputs get bigger. In fact, it gets arbitrarily fast and outperforms the brute force implementation which gets slower. I know this might be hard to accept, but I just proved P = NP.
congrats
>>51878006
tits or gtfo
>>51878006
computer engineer and scientist with a phd in metaphysics, graduated from harvard with a 4.0 here
post your proof here so i can check it
i think you just son 1mdd isnt that the bounty?
>>51878031
one second
source or gtfo
>>51878006
Enjoy millionaire life
I have no idea what a modular wheel of prime numbers is but im excited for this thread, OP post!
Although, even if we pretend that what you wrote is true, there already are algorithms that scale insanely better compared to "brute force". Hashmap key retrieval is O(1). And their existence does nor prove P=NP.
>>51878110
kill the non believer
Odds are OP that your implementation only gets faster to a point then either levels or gets slower. Sorry.
>>51878031
first column: input size
middle column: my algorithm
last column: simple algorithm5 0.30994693680656055 0.2980850037462409
55 0.008256920282045721 0.5744914862825999
105 0.0033451365581798065 0.6212790590263879
155 0.002279767219878659 0.6601459494411428
205 0.0017945007235891097 0.6669561022672457
255 0.0006786341102937854 0.7044718826656813
305 0.0006338844926152554 0.6977064794572567
355 0.0013732795516832041 0.7338005357637716
405 0.0005230368157977949 0.7078691586866599
455 0.001105192392564902 0.7331596719729863
>>51878162
yfw
>>51878162
im totally going to believe this
>>51878162
that's not proof, dumbass. Those are a bunch of numbers.
>>51878193
What do you expect?
I can't just post my code since you'd steal my algorithm.
>>51878223
Delete the thread then
>>51878193
>why don't you give me 6millions dollars freely you dumbass
T-thanks /g/
>>51878223
Simple existence of code with scaling as in >>51878162 does not prove P=NP.
>>51878223
real proof or gtfo
>>51878223
hey dude
i also just made an algorithm, and i think its better than yours
input size: 455
time: 0.000000000000455
Reduce it vor gtfo
dumb frogposter
n = 1
if
p = p
>>51878006
So, if you dont want to post code, can you explain how to get past hard problems then?
>I just proved P=NP
No you didn't
So let's say OP had the algorithm to prove P = NP. (he doesn't because OP is a fag) how would one go about monetizing it?
>>51878297
Pretty much like I said.
I used prime numbers, modular arithmetic, and dynamic programming.
>>51878318
>So let's say OP had the algorithm to prove P = NP. (he doesn't because OP is a fag) how would one go about monetizing it?
By actually proving it and claiming the 1 million dollars.
>>51878331
>1 million dollars
Lets be honest, You can get much more than that with other ways.
>>51878258
HOLY SHIT SOMEBODY PAY THIS MAN
>>51878338
Let's say, prove that you solved it by posting solution to various problems, including ones submitted by users, then do something like a kickstarter - when the sum is reached you release the full proof.
>>51878355
>kikestarter
>getting more money than 1 mil lump sum for math
>>51878338
sell it to ISIS, i heard they have lots of money
>>51878365
You'd still get the 1 million, you dumb fuck MIT nigger.
>>51878378
american tax dollars at work
>>51878365
Quite obviously you're not going to be collecting money from videogame crowd, so none of known stats work.
>>51878387
What he means is, you might earn more by not sharing the solution with the world. Really, how slow does one have to be to not see that?
>>51878387
>giving kickstarter a cut of a potentially groundbreaking discovery for doing nothing
You are fucking shit.
>>51878393
>>51878387
>I think kickstarter is a good path to monetization.
>>>/v/
We are talking about an algortinim that could change the entire world of computing, and a huge leap, and you guys think kickstarter is the best you can do?
>>51878355
By the way, how does one post solutions without posting the algorithm?
>>51878455
Obfuscate your code and post it
>>51878461
>>51878455
Yeah, use Denuvo.
>>51878461
>implying that wouldnt get instantly reverse engineered
>>51878473
>implying anyone cares about your shit code
NSA solved this shit decades ago
>>51878472
>Denuvo
>>>/v/
its been cracked, retard
>>51878429
It's the easiest I can think of that nets much more than guaranteed 1mil. What is your proposition?
>>51878487
>its been cracked, retard
Where's JC3 then?
>>51878455
Post answers to NP problems considered computationally not feasible nowdays.
P=NP
P=0
0 = N * 0
0 = 0
Man, that was easy
>>51878495
Patent the algorithim, gain all of the money. But thats a bit too easy, and too easy to steal/not pay.
>>51878240
He could just post some kind of debug view which shows how the input is handled faster when it's larger. Just the values and a timer. That'd be a whole lot better than just posting some numbers.
>>51878162
You should probably learn some math before attempting mathematical proof. A bunch of numbers can at best only be evidence of something. It doesn't prove anything, P can NOT be NP even if a list of numbers exist.
>>51878501
>Where's JC3 then?
>>>/v/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denuvo
>>51878513
Holy FUCK
>>51878513
> there are no P-hard problems
> hence there are no NP-hard problems
> i am complete zero
well done
>>51878536
Are you saying that 0 P-hard problems isn't the same amount of 0 NP-hard problems?
>>51878517
Patent the proof?
Anyway you won't have money to fight off corporations. Patents are there to protect rich, not inventors.
>>51878455
Do a travelling salesman with a few million nodes, post outcome
>>51878533
>Wikipedia link
Wow. That explains EVERYTHING.
>>51878545
Say it in English.
>>51878556
If there are 0 P problems and 0 NP problems, isn't there the same amount of problems for both?
Ergo 0 = 0
>>51878546
I think you need to loosen your tinfoil hat, son.
>>51878567
Of course. Any conclusion drawn from false premise is going to be true.
I'm looking forward to reading about this. If I don't see anything we'll all know that you're full of shit.
>>51878585
There we go, I was right
gib moni now pls
>>51878603
but that does not make you right
This shit is easy
P = NP
Divide by P
1 = N
Now we know that N is 1P = 1 * P
P = P
Fukken easy as pie
>>51878546
Lol, go blackhat and break all encryption. Take all the monies. Or sell to guvt, assuming they don't laugh in your face and tell you they solved this in the 80's.
>>51878623
Is 0 = 0 false?
Is N * 0 = 0 false?
No
So I am right
>>51878632
Even if you do break the encryption, risk of getting caught is very high.
>>51878640
P and N are not even numbers.
>>51878664
0 isn't even, nor is it odd
>>51878526
>P can NOT be NP
Now that isn't true. No one has proven that P != NP.
In fact, statistics are all we have. We have evidence that P != NP from empirical tests of known algorithms even though we have no proof. If OP finds statistics that suggest P = NP, that would be big news. After all, to this point all the statistics suggest P != NP.
>>51878626
>>51878640
Pls Google why this is wrong before you shitpost. As if this isn't what every single person with a modicum of intelligence does as soon as they see the problem written on the board in comp sci 101.
>>51878675
I'll leave you to it.
>>51878685
I have a personal axiom that if I can think of something within a second of seeing something, it's likely thousands of other people have shared and stated that exact same thought. That usually applies often when seeing someone's name and associating it with a famous actor or character.
>>51878504
>>51878549
How will you prove it's the best solution and not just decent heuristics?
let's assume that N=5, then P=5P which is absurd
let's assume that N=3, then P=3P which is absurd
let's assume that N=5, then P=5P which is absurd
let's assume that N=9, then P=9P which is absurd
let's assume that N=1, then P=1P=P which is true
therefore P=NP
>>51878710
The solution is just a solution, it's either correct or wrong, and for most problems where finding solution is NP-hard, checking if solution is correct is piss-easy. So you don't prove. You just give out the solution and that causes people to believe you solved it.
>>51878006
Rather than proving P = NP, just prove P = 0 or N = 1
>>51878727
That's not a proof. Try that shit in a discrete math class.
>>51878738
>you can easily check if the solution is correct
Yeah, but that doesn't do anything for OP's cause. Let's say I make a small breakthrough in heuristic algorithms and give a solution that's marginally better than a top notch algorithm today. That doesn't show anything. Or, let's give an even dumber example, I take a billion nodes TSP and randomise the order and post it as a solution. Unless someone can find a better solution, mine is technically the best but that doesn't mean that rand() solves P=NP.
>>51878805
Finding solution in polynomial time to an NP-hard problem is nowhere near "marginally better".
>>51878626
Yeah, but how much is P?
>>51878006
dumb frogposte
>>51878006
>frogposter proving anything besides OP=FAG
That's where you went wrong
P = N x P when N is 1. /thread
>>51878678
> Now that isn't true. No one has proven that P != NP.
I never said it was true or that anything was proven.
> If OP finds statistics that suggest P = NP, that would be big news. After all, to this point all the statistics suggest P != NP.
Yes, but that would still not be proof and all he has given is a list of numbers. Everyone can write a list of numbers. If his algoritm is "Write several random lists of numbers , the first one in a ascending multiples of 5, the second in nearly always descending decimals less than one and the last column in almost always ascending numbers less than one."
Then it would not be evidence of anything. Posting numbers is useless.
