So is this it? Is it all over now? Is this the authoritative

>>9110545
give it a year

https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/38803/where-is-norbert-blums-2017-proof-that-p-ne-np-being-discussed

>>9110545
The paper is wrong, P/NP can't be proven this way.

>>9110545
N=1
Trust me, I got a 25 on the math part of the ACT.

>>9110545
>Germany being good at math again
Nah, they had their spotlight but Germany is brainlet central. The guy probably made an arithmetic mistake like 1+1=3 somewhere in there.

>>9110545
Identity
Evaluation
Priority

P=NP as a question is: Does Identity = Identity? Which of course it does. The question people really want to ask though is if identity = evaluation, which of course it doesn't. The reason why nobody will accept a proof for P=NP because they can't really agree that well on the question being framed in such a way that there is a mathematically 'definitive' answer. Which you won't have 'until you are outside the dimension of time', because then you actually a 'unit of divisibility' which is what maths EXISTS for. If there is nothing to be divided, then you cannot address it.

You create identity by grouped evaluations, which is determined by observer (i.e. 'the one that made the equation in the first place).

So yes there are always going to be P ways to solve NP problems, but P and NP is the same as saying 0 and 1 -> binary states. They are just ways to represent problems and not 'unique representative sets'. Things are hard, and then not. People just want to know if mathematically that is also a true statement, which it is.

However because mathematics is pure 'evaluation' it doesn't know how to parse 'identity' as a concept.

If P=NP then we could just ask a computer to prove it. If a computer can't prove it and we have to rely on human brains, then necessarily P≠NP. So what we do know is that regardless of who comes up with a proof, if they want a million dollars the proof has to be that P≠NP, or a computer will get the money.

>>9111203
I got a 25 on the math part of the SAT.

>>9111625
Are you retarded?

>>9110571
Well, it's flawed, apparently.

Too bad, I was getting goosebumps with the news. How the fuck is someone supposed to prove that P=!NP? Which field should they work on to get something?

>>9111688
>Well, it's flawed, apparently.
How so?

>>9111729
The Barnett theorem cannot be applied to triple integrals in Wildberger quadrance-induced Banach spaces. You have to fallback to the Barnett-integrability theorems, and the Witten [math]\mathfrak{Pheno}[/math] function is not Barnett-integrable because of how [math]\mathbb{BIG}[/math] it gets.

>>9111729
The discussion at https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/38803/where-is-norbert-blums-2017-proof-that-p-ne-np-being-discussed

Everyone kind of agrees that there's something "missing" on "theorem 6".

Why would Blum blow his load like this and come up with something not bulletproof if he was actually on to something? If someone pokes a few holes in it but the overarching idea leads someone in the direction to actually solve it Blum will have done the heavy lifting leaving some bottomfeeder to finish it off and get the million dollars and endless pussy. I think Blum knows he didn't solve it and has little hope of doing so, and just wants to get his 15 minutes of math fame.

>>9111203
N=P=0.
N=O, P!=0.