4 ms·
The ad-hominem was maybe unwarranted, sorry. Let's get back to the subject matter by me repeating the material question in my comment above, which you ignored:
by jojomodding 1y ago
The ad-hominem was maybe unwarranted, sorry. Let's get back to the subject matter by me repeating the material question in my comment above, which you ignored: "Complexity theorists routinely find out if two complexity classes are included in each other or not. Why would Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem stop them for P=NP in particular?"
PS: I read through the transcript of the YouTube video you linked (and also know the material from my CS degree education) so I do in fact know what Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is. Note that the video is really not about P=NP at all, not any more than it is about 1+1=2. The use of P=NP in the video was just to give an example of "what is a statement."
- Joel_Mckay 1y agoPersonally I never saw degrees as an excuse to post nonsensical answers or troll people with personal barbs. P!=NP can be shown true for certain constrained sets, but P=NP was shown it can't currently be proven. People can twist it anyway they like, but stating they can "sort of" disprove or prove P=NP is 100% obfuscated BS. That is why the million dollar prize remains unclaimed. Have a great day, =3
- shusaku 1y agoComplaining about ad hominem and then writing that awful comment, you should be embarrassed.
- jojomodding 1y ago> P!=NP can be shown true for certain constrained sets What? That's not even wrong. What do you mean by that?
- Joel_Mckay 1y ago"Directions (I speak no English)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vgoEhsJORU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vgoEhsJORU Best of luck =3