p=np

I'm pretty sure the OP for this question was actually just a prankster/brainlet

look into it

>>9148222
Set n to be one. Problem solved.

There is more to it than meets the eye.
Obvs you think it looks easy with that HS algebraic knowledge

If there was a solution, no one would give it out. Because, there goes your bank account and everything secure

>>9148513
This, this is why NSA were so fast at getting their hands on the [math]P \neq NP[/math] paper published few days ago and disproving it using a psuedonym of another mathematician

>>9148783
Bullshit, let's see some proof

>>9148513
Even if it turned out that P=NP, it does not follow that computing the solution is as fast as checking it. It just means that it's doable in polynomial time, which gives quite a lot of leeway.

>>9148222
It's not simple, you fucking retarded cunt. It's not a literal equation.

Kill yourself you cunting mongoloid nigger.

Not OP (the mongoloid cunt) here, but can someone explain this to me in laymans terms? I remember walking by a comp sci classroom and they had that on the board. No idea what it was since im chem, but it reminded of here. Thanks

>>9149089
Its about whether or not all computible algorithms are do-able in polynomial time.

Things like searching a disordered list take N time, where N is the length of the list. Poor, but simple sorting algorithms take N squared time. Some really difficult algorithms, like brute forcing an encrypted file take exponential time, like 2^N. AES256 for instance is approximately 2^256, which even if you used every computer on Earth would take trillions of years.

The P=NP debate is about whether or not things like AES256 cracking are fundamentally impossible to do faster than exponentially. P is the set of polynomial-time problems, NP is the set of non-polynomial time problems.

Its important because, among other reasons, all our online banking depends on encryption like AES256 being impossible to break, i.e. P =/= NP.

>>9149125
ah excellent thanks

so if someone finds a way to prove P=NP then it means it lays out a mathematical foundation to access encrypted data in a feasible amount of time?

>>9149125
Nope nope nope.

NP is the set of Nondeterministic Polynomial Time Problems. They can be done in polynomial time if you can exploit non-determinism. Formally, a problem is in NP if it's solutions can be verified in polynomial time.

>>9149178
There are no non-deterministic turing machines.

>>9149177
It opens that possibility, yes. It's not a guarantee. The new algorithm might still be horribly slow, just not exponentially slow. Instead of taking trillions of years it might still be billions of years.

>>9149181
Nobody has built a non-deterministic machine, but they are part of the theory.

That's why the class is called Nondeterministic Polynomial Time.

P=NP = ANALOG != DIGITAL

This question is the same as : could you communicate something to every human being and have them write it down AT THE EXACT SAME TIME.

Of course not. Time dilation. Time needs to 'take priority/precedence'.

Maths however resolves 'now'. It is not a computer so it does not understand cycles. Maths is time.

It's all about circles.

You cannot divide by zero in maths because that is like Time saying 'Okay, guess I'll kill myself now.' OR 'I want to remove the observer from the equation'

YOU FUCKING CAN'T!

For it to be observable by ANYTHING means it must be accessible by EVERYTHING!

JUST
NOT
AT
THE
SAME
FUCKING
TIME

CIRCLE!

Pi = ALMOST ZERO

>>9149340
eh a little obtuse

Space also matters hugely for P=NP. Given idealized infinite space /capacity / memory etc you can prove p=np easily.

The algorithm can't use infinite memory space as well.

P = NP
P - P = NP - P
0 = NP - P
0 = P(N - 1)
P = 0 or N - 1 = 0
P = 0 or N - 1 + 1 = 0 + 1
P = 0 or N = 1

Why are csfags such fucking brainlets?