Why is everyone getting extremely nervous that P does equal NP after all? Doesn't that mean we can speedrun utopia?
>>17081271yeah, but before that happens Ranjeet from New Delhi will also speed run your bank accounts
>>17081271People, as it turns out, are very bad at estimating difficulty, and don't know how things are going to shake out.>>17081328is correct about the consequences of being wrong about P=NP.
To know if P = NP we must first solve The Cube ConjectureThat is, can all math be organized as cube micro visual proofs?Or, more importantly, is there a definitive absolute bottom fundamental, foundational absolute unchanging quantity of point particles in the universe, are they all identical to one another, what is the quantity of these point particles?At the smallest, bottom foundational, fundamental Planck layer, can the Taxicab Geometry,/Manhattan Distances be cut and sliced through the final gimbal track diagonally any farther?Or are there a definitive quantity of identical parts, locked into dimensional cardinal movements they all follow like a road/ruleset of simplicityDo we need more complexity than a massive quantity of small simple identical parts moving simply, yet adding together, building, scaling up in ratio massively on the Planck size chartIf every point particle can be any size, and change to any size in any time frame, as time could then be infinitely sliced smaller and smaller, like string theory, any quantity of strings at any time al of any size, and connect together in any angle with any other quantity of point particle, then I would argue the universe is infinite, not quantifiable for a maximum or minimum in quantity, size, scale, dimension, or possessing a discernible final bordered boundary that would maintain our identical to one another point particle Quanta parts piece count at a solid numeralIf Pi is a large, yet rational number, perhaps the total quantity of point particles that exist, than the universe is quantifiable
>P=NP is finally solved>I can finally simulate a virtual reality where every girl wants my dick>wait a sec>the entire goal of our reality was to simulate a new reality>...>mind blown
>>17081271a lot of scientific dogma is being revealed as false and we need to figure out who we need to kill for lying about this for centuries
Its the same if you pee or not pee while lying in bed, because non of it is real
>>17081271I think there is an opposite class of problems where the aswer is easy to find, but virtually impossible to prove true. P=NP would be an example of such a problem.
>>17081460You won't do shitAlso won't get fundinglmao, a nerd revolution
>>17081460Relativity is the next field thats getting exposed
>>17081460>we need to figure out whoFirst you would have to figure out what you actually mean by "scientific dogma" then you can just figure out who made it and who propagates it, but since you said it is from some centuries old people, they are already kill, so you can just go tell your radicalized pastor that you succeeded in your mission.
>>17081271>Doesn't that mean we can speedrun utopia?*death. we speedrun death. most of us anyway.it would be chaos. all encryption goes to shit. payment systems collapse, digital banking all that. no more secrets between countries. mayhem
>>17081373this is a pretty cool comment
>>17081373>sliced through the final gimbal track diagonally any farther?Ya probably with like a spiral or something>If pi is large yet rational number, perhaps quantifiableYou're making a joke right?I think that spiral/diagonal slippage in the foundational Gimbal lock is God or something
>>17082691in fact, it's this foundational "slippage" at the Planck Layer that allows for the universe to continually evolve into higher (it's relative) levels of complexity.
>>17082312You wish, goyboy
>>17082708string theory got rekt even before AI, now it's time to put Einstein to rest for good
what about n = pn? guys, hear me out-
>>17081271Why the P = NP problem doesnt take into consideration the methods with which the problem could be solved?Some problems that normally would involve going through every possibility can be solved quickly theoretically with a quantum computer.
>>17083720Quantum Computers aren't solving P = NP by using new polynomial time algorithms, they are using the laws of physics to bypass the issue with extreme parallelism. And you're right, they only work for a few specific types of problems.
>>17081373>point particleNo such thing. Everything is a wave. Waves are "detected" as points because entangled waves decohere at a point. That's what's detected.
>>17083729P = NP looks to me like trying to prove that if you throw a hole bunch of marbles on to the floor is possible to reconstruct their original position in around the same amount of time they took to reach their final position.But there is no magical formula to do forward processes in reverse. At least not with polynomial time algos.
