Let's prove the P vs NP problem. One word per line:
If
let
centipedes
N-dimensional
Gauss
be
Homology
-1/12
Wildberger
Suppose
brainlets
wtf
, then
by the above,
fuck it
>>8629844
, since
all
trivial
as is known
10^200
t. jacob barnett
>>8629844
supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
never once seen a good thread based on this concept
because niggers always ruin evrthn
>>8630154
Given an infinite number of these threads we will prove P = NP.
N=1
thus
In conclusion
>>8630238
yes, but we will also prove P != NP
trivial
N = 1
QED
References
>>8630357
Wikipedia
Quantum
statics
iff
manifold
numberphile
NUMBERWANG!
therefore P = NP
>>8630799
my random proof generator has proved P != NP before, here it is
axiom 1: P != NP
QED
The rest of the proof is trivial and left up as an excercise for the reader.
I left out the gay ones
If let centipedes n-dimensional Gauss be Homology, -1/12 Wildberger suppose brainlets wtf, then by the above, fuck it, since all trivial as is known 10^200 supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. N=1, thus in conclusion (trivial) N=1. Quantum statics IFF manifold, numberphile numberwang! Therefore P = NP
QED references - wikipedia
-/sci/, 2017
>>8631248
Now where should we get it published?
>>8631270
send it to major news outlets and tell them /sci/ consists of only racial minorities
>>8629844
You're using the wrong computational model.If you use the correct model, it trivially holds that P=NP, see https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.06018 . Do note that we can make additional assumptions to the current flawed model from which it follows that N=/=NP, see https://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP/Deolalikar.pdf .
>>8631270
If any midly serious place will publish it, it will probably be accepted here: https://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm . Basically, if a P vs. NP proof isn't mentioned there, it doesn't exist (yet), or simply too bad to entertain.
>>8631248
>N=1, thus in conclusion (trivial) N=1.
Fields medal when?
complexity
>>8630017
10^200 fag please go
Nigger