>P = NP
1 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -(1/12)
>>8079917
STOP
>>8079796
I don't get why people think there's any way that P = NP. It implies that it's possible to build a machine that can make random guesses from finite possibilities and always have the guess be the right one. It's absurd.
[math] P=NP [/math]
[math]\frac{P}{P} = N [/math]
[math]N=1 [/math]
[math]P=(1)P [/math]
[math]P=NP [/math]
>>8079917
zeta = god
>>8080020
A deterministic machine is one that does the same thing every time when given the same input. A nondeterministic machine is one that does one of some finite set of possible things when given some input. When considering if a nondeterministic machine can solve a problem (and what its computational complexity would be) the machine is assumed to make the best possible choice.
Nondeterministic machines don't exist (how could they?) but we can build machines that act like them by deterministically searching all possible outcomes and selecting the best one. This shatters the complexity of the operation, however.
A problem being P means that it can be solved in polynomial time on a deterministic machine. A problem being NP means it can be solved in polynomial time by a nondeterministic machine. Thus, all problems in NP are solvable on real machines, but their solutions are not necessarily polynomial. With multicore and distributed systems we can emulate some degree of nondeterminism using parallel threads, but NP allows any number of possible choices at any step of the algorithm. We don't have machines that can run quadrillions of threads.
If P = NP, that means that every problem that can be solved efficiently on a nondeterministic machine can be solved efficiently on a deterministic machine. In other words, there is some way to build a machine that can make random guesses and always pick the best one the first time. If that sounds idiotic, that's because it is.
>>8080037
Man why do people type really detailed posts in response to my deleted dumbassery. Either way, the spoonfeeding is appreciated.
>>8080016
dx/dy = f(x, y)
x/y = f(x, y)
>>8079796
> P = P
> NP = NP
> P != NP
That wasn't hard tbqh, where's my monies?
>>8080037
>claiming an important unkown result is idiotic
it sounds idiotic because your explanation is shit
