what interests you more

File: 1485834763356.jpg (34KB, 658x464px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 658x464px

>>8703573
A proof by contradiction of P vs. NP.

File: 1487718676268.jpg (37KB, 1115x595px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1115x595px

A proof by induction of P vs NP.

>>8703573
N = 1
:)

Couldn't a solution to P vs. NP end up meaning nothing if it's P =/= NP? It would only tell us it's impossible for current computers to easily solve NP hard problems, not whether or not it's possible to easily solve them with new types of computing in the future.

>>8703573
Riemann Hypothesis = Proof that the universe is the ultimate 'free lunch'

P vs NP = Would be identifying the ratio required to increase N to 1. Evolution is a good base-proof; survival of the fittest is no different than us building faster computers. They fit 'our' purposes, so computers become a subsystem for humanity.

>>8703602
Because P vs NP is a 'process/algorithm'. I've always wondered why humanity wanted quantum computers to just GIVE them all the answers. It would remove 'intellect' as an actual virtue.

>>8703621
>Riemann Hypothesis = Proof that the universe is the ultimate 'free lunch'
What?

>>8703624
The distance between 99% and 100% is far greater than 1%. I use percentages because they are a good representation of a ratio/system/combination of either/or.

The closer we get to 100% the harder each subsequent increase becomes. Just like calculating Pi to however many digits you want.

Difficulty increases to a point that getting closer forces you to adopt different rules, until eventually you EXCEED 100%. This then begins the ratio/percentage of another system (escape velocity for example) and transforms into something else's 1%.

This is the same as the difference between 0 and 1. Just like Pi is the difference between 0 and 1 in a circle, but you can 'exceed' it quite easily.

The state of 0 is something else's 1, the state of 1 is something else's 0. It might look very binary, but it isn't. Thermodynamics for example is extremely complicated set of laws/rules/systems in play.

Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis (Stephen Hawking will most likely end up being the representative for its proof) will simply prove that the first law of thermodynamics is more valid than originally assumed and that we aren't in an 'isolated' system. When we know this then evolving/advancing/black hole stuff is simply a case of effort/time (because we've already established that time is simply the ratio of thermodynamics: VOID|THOUGHT -> EXISTENCE)

File: 1359215943705.jpg (29KB, 521x380px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 521x380px

>>8703643

File: 1485610861014.jpg (70KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1080x1080px

>>8703643

>>8703643

Sounds like a load of HOOPLAH to me.

>>8703573
P vs. NP would be more interesting for me, simply because I have an idea of what its proof or falsification would imply, where as I have no clue about the effect of Riemann's hypothesis being true or not. It's a bit selfish and could change if I learnt of an interesting consequence.