Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'?

On 6/10/2024 10:37 PM, wij wrote:

On Mon, 2024-06-10 at 21:50 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

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?

You and Andy are the opposite kind of crank who believe they are knowledgeable
enough. Both of these people showed many stubborn idiocy not aware of
themselves instead stick to past illusion.
Did money drive you crazy? You are too far from my level. Eat the paper or title
you had and keep dreaming.

That was one of the most incomprehensible replies I've every seen on
USENET - Congratulations! It makes no sense. It inspires me to ask you a
serious question: Was the above reply to Ben 1) based on a problem with
the details of English grammar and vocabulary or 2) a mind-bending brain
freeze from eating gallons of ice cream in a single sitting? A sarky
answer will not help your image here though I'm sure you will not admit
to caring. So why don't you pick among the choices I've offered you or
just give it a pass.

Oh, I forgot to include a third choice above: 3) are you a sock puppet
for Peter?
--
Jeff Barnett