I've got eight months of free time I've decided to

>>8393390

Wtf is the big deal about P=NP?

It either does or it doesn't, so you've got a 1/2 chance of getting it right.

good luck solving p=np without lower category theory, interdimensional dykemueller theory, weyl spinors, penrose fistors, or double integrals, faggot.

>>8393394
n = 1

>>8393390
>Note that I only have up to Calculus 2 knowledge.
You'd need years to even get the bases. Eight months for 10 hours a day are LITERALLY laughable.

I'm making progress. I just, as in a couple of minutes ago, completely understood the problem. The question asks if an algorithm relating sets that are variable can compute it in the same polynomial time, that is the same number of steps, as an algorithm computes a singular set. Clearly, it makes sense that it likely can't because more data is associated with even more complex programming. I have't been this happy in months.

Look OP I'm smart and I spent a month studying math like a madman. You need to take care of food, have good sleep, exercise every day, never sit for too much time, etc... it's not just about mathematics. Then, in my perspective you better have a very strong basis. This gives you a lot of instruments and confidence, then you'll be able to figure out most complex math by yourself, without having to rely too much in your textbook.

>>8393837
I'm already doing that. Did you even read my post? I have the intuition to the problem.

after using watching some math YouTube videos while on dmt, I know I am right on the verge of solving p=np and the Riemann hypothesis, I just need some dmt and YouTube videos to complete my work

the funny thing is, and I don't think anybody but me had made this connection except for maybe George pearlman, that the nontrivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function have an intimate relationship with Rocco flow, the same phenomenon used to solve the pawnclare conjecture

>>8393390
Just say P is proportional to P and get over with is faggot.

not a good use of time, there are mathematicians with decades of experience who have been doing this for years while you have barely scratched the surface

It might be counter-intuitive, but you have a greater chance of solving it one day if you use this time for something else like studying something practical and trying to start a career

>>8393390
OP here, I think I solved it! Email me and i will tell u the secret :3 xD [email protected]

P=NP

P/P=NP/P
N=1 or 0

P can be anything

>>8395272
P can be whatever you believe

you create spooky action at a distance, quantum linking a subject to its closest surrogate object. That's N=1

N=0 is either the before, or after the quantum link, where it now sits in whichever surrogate you (the quantifier) fit it to the most

>>8393409
Why is this so fucking funny?

OP here. Although I've got an understanding of what the problem is asking it just seems so hard. It requires a massive understanding of mathematics.

Why can't P=NP be solved empirically?

>>8396409
We can look at fluids empirically too, it doesnt mean we actually understand exactly why the Navier Stokes Equations work the way they do.