Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'?

wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 00:36 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
 

On Sun, 2024-06-09 at 20:55 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
 

ℙ≠ℕℙ
Proved. https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/PNP-proof-en.txt/download
...[cut]
   Proof2: Let p="Given a number n, determine whether or not n
is even". If
          ℙ=ℕℙ, then p∉ℕℙℂ is a false proposition because all
ℕℙ problems
          including ℕℙℂ are mutually Ptime reducible. Since
p∉ℕℙℂ is true,
          ℙ≠ℕℙ is concluded.

 
Where is your proof that p is not NP-complete?  Since you don't know
this subject very well, you would benefit more from asking people to
direct you to resources from which you could learn, rather than posting
provocative messages.

 
<silly insults deleted>
 

To be on topic, can you show us the p (as mentioned) is NPC or p is
not NPC, either will do, to prove how much you understand what you
talked about.

 
If I could do that I would be rich, quite literally.  Sadly, I can't and
neither can anyone else on the planet (so far).  But if you think you
can, head over to the Clay Mathematics Institute and persuade them to
give you a million dollars[1].

>
Money corrupts soul (I had been rich enough, I know what that means).

Every crank has to have a reason why they post in the almost dead corner
of the Internet rather that publishing, gaining fame and/or fortune or,
in fact, doing anything to get their apparently radical ideas properly
disseminated.

Over the years, I've probably heard them all.  So you don't want the
money.  OK.  Why don't you want to publish where mathematicians will
find out about your ideas?

--
Ben.