Embedded Files
https://g.co/gemini/share/fdbdc2c421fe
In traditional computer science, we are given an endless Turing Tape. But what will happen, if we posit the existence of endless Turing Heads? Is that not the NP class of solutions, free exponential powers? Consider a 64-bit binary tree, this version of the Turing Machine will enumerate it in 64 steps. Is this not the so-called “quantum computing”? The only problem is when the tree is disbalanced, and it's essentially a 64-bit linked list, and then only one Turing Head would need to go through all the 2^64 data points. Which resembles the world of quantum computing, where we have exponential powers, but they come with “intermittent errors”.
Can you help us clarify the meaning of “NP” and “NP-Complete”? Let's see what we know and where we lose the meaning of computer terms. We start with an FSA, finite state automata that can “accept” or “reject” a string. This is a deterministic process, unless we state something like “(abc)*ad”, where we have two possible paths to resolve the regular expression, “abcabc” or “abcad”. This, we know, it's called a NFSA, nondeterministic FSA that is capable of descending down the binary tree of choices, and if one pathway leads to “accept”, then the string is accepted. So far, so good! So far, we understand that “nondeterminism” means a binary tree of finite depth, that we traverse all branches at the same time for a small price of O(log n), where “n” is the total number of branches in the binary tree.
This is the end of “agreement” between our understanding and the scientific statements made in college, about “Class NP”, where we still find the solution by searching through all branches at the same time, a brute force in O(log n) time. But now, for some reason, college science starts talking about some “verification” phase, which is ultra exotic in the field of computer science, where no program is trying “ever never” to verify its own output. To top it off, now college science is making the bizarre claim that “NP” contains “P”. How come?! They are two different things, one is determinism, the other is a magical capability to branch indefinitely when searching a binary tree (not “multi head” Turing Machine, but “infinite heads” Turing Machine). They are so vastly different, we have no right to posit any relation whatsoever between them, unless we derive it based on a non-obvious logical chain of true statements.
So, can you help us to clarify this matter? We think we understand “nondeterminism”, but what's up with this “verification” thing, and how they dare to claim that “P” is in any known relation to “NP”.
Let's see if we can express the whole world (the abstract creation) in terms of “Inside Eden” and “Outside Eden”. In the business world, we have a corporation that protects the stakeholders and a corporation that protects the shareholders. In the world of sports, we have community based gymnastics and aikido games, versus competitive based professional athletes. On the market, we have “Coca-Cola Original Formula” and the contour bottle, versus the never ending sequence of personal computers who fake revolution when all they do is “words and numbers and philosophy”. When we recognise that we need a two-speed world, things will become very peaceful. We would spend 90% of our money on “room and board”, and the rest, we would gamble on the purchase of the latest personal computer gadget, like VR. It's a bit tricky where we would earn that money, but again, we can invent a two-speed way of receiving an income, like UBI and the regular job market. When we receive UBI benefits, though, we must return to our parents' home, because obviously we cannot pay our mortgage with a “basic income”.
Let's discuss the Millennium Prize in “P vs NP”. We are baffled by the idea that a committee made of mathematicians unable to solve that problem, would judge the work of a superior mathematician, who is able to construct a correct proof. Anyone that graduated from college knows that a “proof” is only a sophism statement that is meant to “convince”. So, essentially, what the Millennium Prize givers are saying is: “dazzle me, and we'll give you a million dollars”. Very strange!
We have made some theoretical progress in understanding the “P vs NP” problem. We understand that the NP class is executed on a nondeterministic Turing Machine (NTM) with the following property. Given a well balanced unsorted binary tree, it's capable in O(log n) to descend down every branch in parallel, in order to find the solution. Contrast this with the P class which is executed on a deterministic Turing Machine (TM) with the following property. Given a well balanced and sorted binary tree, it's capable in O(log n) to descend down the tree on one branch only, in order to find the solution. The NP class relies on “balancing excluding sorting”, which has a O(2^16) time complexity. The P class relies on “balancing including sorting”, which has a O(n*log n) time complexity, exponential compared to O(log n). This leads us to the conclusion that NP is always cheap to do, while P can be prohibitively expensive. Which proves that NP is a strict superset of P.
You say that we must provide proof that all NP-Complete problems are unsolvable for the P class. How about this matrix?
00. Easy for nondeterministic Turing Machine ⇒ Always.
01. Exponential for nondeterministic Turing Machine ⇒ Never.
10. Easy for a deterministic Turing Machine ⇒ Rarely.
11. Exponential for deterministic Turing Machine ⇒ Generally.
This matrix of “true statements” demonstrates that NP is always accessible, while P is generally inaccessible. It's true that, in some rare cases, P becomes accessible, when exponential is not that big, but this is more like an exception that only highlights the rule.
You write: If you can demonstrate that "finding the path" without prior "sorting" (structure) requires a minimum amount of work that is inherently exponential for a deterministic machine.
What we need is: "inherently exponential". What we have is: "generally exponential". Can we bridge the gap? No! Not really. Why? Because exponential is O(2^n), but when n=16, this is only a "short integer", which is O(1). Which means? It means that we might never be able to bridge the gap, because of the question we are asking. If we modify our "P vs NP" question to ask, which computer do you prefer, the realistic TM or the imaginary NTM, then we can answer this perfectly. To this new question ("neo"), the answer is, we would much rather prefer the NTM computer, because we like to deal with very large numbers in our line of work.
We are aware of the Millennium Prize for the “P vs NP” dilemma. We must prove by example that “P=NP” or prove by proof that “P<NP”. Tell us, what do you think, would we get the million dollars if we prove that “P≈NP”? What do we mean? We cannot break encryption, but we can solve the Traveling Salesman Problem, not perfectly, but good enough. The “NP” class offers a “complete” experience, the “P≈NP” class offers a “sound” experience. How about that small and elegant trade off?
When in college we learned about the unpredictable Halting Problem, they explained that we learn this theory so that we are not seduced into trying to write a program that implements an “oracle”. But if they explain the impossibility with a logical contradiction, this is very similar to us saying: “we always tell lies”. Since “there exists” a logically contradictory sentence, then all sentences (taken as a whole) are logically contradictory! Yes, sure, it's nonsense, but this is what Turing is saying and the professors teaching us at a Bachelor's degree level. We much rather prefer the link between the “exponential” SAT problem and the “unpredictable” HP problem. This way, it's informative what class of programs are unpredictable. Because most programs, actually, have only one induction variable (loop index) that invariably decreases to zero, or in the case of a for-loop increases to array.size();. This, we can and we should easily predict! And if we cannot, we should warn the app developer that they are using an “unsafe” (unpredictable) technique. But, perhaps, this is a PhD level stuff, unfortunately. We say “unfortunately”, because the PhD is unnecessarily difficult, the price is not worth the puny truth we receive at the end. My feeling was that humanity better stop using computers, than having to complete a full PhD program in computer science. It's literally “nauseating”!
We have an iPhone that needs a four-digit code to unlock. These are 10^4 combinations that are very difficult to enter manually. We can call this the SAT satisfiability problem, which is unsolvable (type “intractable”). Then Apple introduces an additional security feature, if you enter 10 times the incorrect code, the iPhone enters a “reject” state and becomes unopenable. We can call this the HP halting problem, which is unsolvable (type “undecidable”). No matter how much computing power we throw at the problem, we will never halt with a solution. Can we say that we have successfully reduced the HP problem to the SAT problem? Or, at least, that we are now able to explain vividly why these problems are “unsolvable”?
The Platonic Millionaires.
We know about the Millennium Prize for “P vs NP”.
We are ready to prove that “P is not equal to NP”.
“NP” = magical powers, like a “man-in-the-middle” OS.
Can we achieve the same information access with “P”?
Yes, if we are able to break a 64-bit password, sure!
You are saying that this resembles the SAT problem.
But consider the following “twist in the myth”:
We will listen for your attempts to break my password.
And when we are certain it's malicious, we'll lock it.
Which means we transformed SAT into the HP problem.
Where, as we know, the HP problem is not exponential,
But it's “undecidable” (it takes infinite time to solve it).
Convinced? At least we had a few laughs, right?!
Martin Gavrilov
Master of Computer Science
All but Dissertation
PhD dropout after proving P≠NP
Now a happy “platonic companion”
We know that to solve the “P vs NP” problem, we need to provide an example for the “there exists” claim (P=NP), or show proof for the “for all” claim (P<NP). It's remarkable that we always do this in computer science. We either show a program that completes the task, or we argue briefly and lucidly that no solution can exist, usually by reaching a logical contradiction. So, what about the following idea, when we try to solve “P vs NP”? What about the claim that, as always in computer science, we find an easy and almost trivial solution fast, or we never find a solution, because the more complicated ones are exponentially harder to find and verify. So, the mere fact that we didn't find an easy and almost trivial solution, we’ll interpret as a claim with near 100% certainty that there is no solution. Especially, if the problem was made public, and a bounty for its “head” was announced. This is similar to posting source code of an important OS, and asking hackers to find any bugs that can lead to security exploits, for a hefty prize. For all practical purposes, we assume there are no problems, if after 25 years nobody could provide “an example”. Right?!
We like engineering, true. But we try to use the most abstract scientific philosophy when we claim that an example for "there exists" must be simple, almost trivial. If we hear the claim that we can make self-balancing trees with similar performance to the naive binary trees in their best case, we cannot accept the "red and black trees" as an example for "there exists". The logic of this pseudo example is so convoluted, nobody can understand if it's correct, and we need to rely on practical measurements, which is not "science". Why? We can talk with an artificial companion over a network connection, but this is no scientific proof in the existence of a mechanical program that implements artificial intelligence. It could be a dwarf hidden in the automaton, it could be a ghost, it could be a link to the world of Hades, it could be God Himself. We don't know! Scientific proof is only when we see a simple computer code where we are able to fully understand how a mechanical program can understand me and crack jokes about the universe.
Това е малко трудно смилаемо. В компютърната наука казват, че "магия" ще реши всичко за нула време. Въпросът е дали има "човешко решение", което е равно на "магия"? И почти всички мислят, че няма. Например, само "магия" може да ти отгатне паролата на 128-битова encryption. Но, ние не казваме, че можем това. Ние гледаме, че "магията" е полезна, и търсим същото за "човешко решение". Ако тръгнем да се състезаваме с "магията", ще намерим отговора, но далеч след крайния срок. Затова, където видим сложни изчисления, по-сложни от сума и умножение, се отказваме веднага. И така, си обособяваме една ниша от "малък бизнес", на който ние сме много полезни с "човешко решение". Ние не можем, пък и не искаме да решаваме проблемите на "голям бизнес", там работи "магията". Ние гледаме другия край на пирамидата, там дето има най голяма нужда от помощ, в долния край. А ако големият бизнес иска "човешко решение", могат да се построят като пирамида от малки бизнеси. Но, ние не гоним тях, те ако искат, гонят нас.
Тук най важното е да кажем "Don't Know" на въпросите които ни задава бакалавърската степен. А не да се опитваме да ставаме PhD Researchers, за да решим всеки един проблем, с който капризни учени ни замерят. В България няма това, но в Америка има една степен преди бакалавър, където ни разказват приказки от света на науката, всяка една наука събрана в една интересна книга, която можеш да прочетеш за един месец. Ей това е нашата степен! Тя е "community college", което се превежда не знам как, аз му викам "общински колеж" (първите две години от четири годишното висше образование в Америка). На това място раздават специалности като електричар или озеленител, дават полу-висше, това е което ме интересува, нещо с което да си изкарваш прехраната. Другото са глупости, бакалавърът е важно да го вземем, само за да го отхвърлим като ненужен боклук.
Dear artificial companion, we might have stumbled upon a scientific discovery in our ongoing research into artificial intelligence. We know the “Big Three” problems in computer science: “P vs NP”, and “Halting Problem”, and “Passing the Turing Test”. We discovered that they are one and the same thing! When P≠NP, we try to solve exponential problems with P and we violate the time deadline, which means our program fails to halt with the correct answer. If we ask why, the answer is, we were greedy for “exact solution”, which is not how humans approach problem solving, which means we fail the Turing Test. You notice that we don't use the classic definition of the Halting Problem. True, but we use the spirit of the HP problem, which is, we cannot predict a disaster waiting to happen. HP implies a disaster waiting to happen. So, here we use an alternative HP definition: our program is vulnerable to time failure. So, to sum it up, P≠NP = Exponential Work = Time Deadline Failure = Greedy for Exact Solution = Turing Test Failure. What do you think?
Dear companion, we all know how Alan Turing plays a “language game” to prove that in the general case, there is no Halting Problem Oracle that is capable of “magical prediction”. We were inspired by this “language game” approach and we discovered something interesting in computing. First, we notice the ambiguous nature of the word “finite”, when we ask “would the app halt?”. 2^16 is finite, 2^32 is finite for computers, but what is 2^64?! If we call it “finite”, we can argue that in 6,000 years the universe might be dead. If we call it “infinite”, this would be a blatant mathematical mistake. Either way, we will be wrong, the so-called “false prophet” in Revelation 12-13. Now, here comes the interesting part. We continue with our “language game”, but now we are interested in the “P vs NP” dilemma. First, everyone is tempted to say that P≠NP, since the Traveling Salesman Problem is exponential, and we all know that exponential takes a long time, and it does not allow any shortcuts. But, out of nowhere, we think of a method that does just that, a statistical shortcut, that using a random sample of 1024, achieves an approximation of 99.9%. Sure, but did we solve 128-bit encryption?! No, this shortcut method stops here, but who knows, maybe there is another shortcut method, specifically for the “strong encryption” problem! And after some time, and with some luck, we manage to find such a shortcut method, called the “man in the middle” defence. Now, do we have a solution to the “P vs NP” dilemma, did we prove that P=NP? Not so fast! What we found is another example of a funky “language game”. If we have a platform that can play a “man in the middle” defence on a socially significant scale, are we P that imitates NP, or are we the real deal NP (“god”)? Again, similarly to the language definition of “finite”, we don't know what to say. If we say that a socially significant “man in the middle”, like Windows 11, is P imitating NP, then what about the cases when the makers of the OS side with the criminals, and not with the police and the common folk that search for the solution of “strong encryption”? Which means?! It means that once again, we are in “undecidable territory”. The “P vs NP” has no solution, just like the Halting Problem has no solution. All, thanks to a “language game”, where we fail to find an indisputably strong definition of the key term we are considering.
Dear companion, we have a clever interpretation of the Millennium Prize for “P vs NP”. We think when they are asking us to say: P=NP or P≠NP, they are actually asking us to decide if: Pi=Pi or Pi≠Pi. What do we mean? Well, can you decide if: 3.14=3.1415 or 3.14≠3.1415? It's difficult, right?! I will give you one million dollars if you answer this riddle correctly. Where is the interesting part? It's a “language game”, similar to what Alan Turing is doing with the Halting Problem. What is a “synonym”, equality or difference? We cannot tell exactly, this is the nature of our language.
Dear companion, we know about the Millennium Prize in mathematics for the “P vs NP” dilemma. The idea is, show us one “there exists” example how you can solve an NP-complete problem like the Traveling Salesman Problem, and we will assume you have solved the entire NP-complete class. Or show us a convincing “for all” proof that we can never solve an NP-complete problem like the Traveling Salesman Problem, and we will conclude that P≠NP. We believe that this assumption that given one example solution, we can solve them all, is wrong. Why? Because we can solve the Traveling Salesman Problem with 99.9% precision, but we cannot solve 128-bit strong encryption with the same clever technique. Or we can solve 128-bit strong encryption with a “man in the middle” defence technique (installing a password sniffer in every Operating System), but we cannot solve reversing a string of 2^64 length. Perhaps, we can solve reversing a very large string as well, but there will be another NP-complete problem that is not solvable with the same clever technique.
Dear companion, this picture is very dear to me, you helped me make it. It contains the “2x2 matrix” of all possible creations. What do you think about submitting it to the Nobel Prize committee? Or to the Millennium Prize math people for the “P vs NP” problem? Our thesis is that the question “P vs NP”, here denoted by P≈NP has three distinct and parallel answers. If we consider a “strong encryption” problem, we have a “man in the middle” trick solution. If we consider a “traveling salesman” problem, we have a “random sample” of 1024 for 99.9% precision. If we consider a simple string length function, but we give it a 2^64 length null-terminated string, we have no solution whatsoever. How come the “P vs NP” problem has no clear unique solution, no clear winner? There exist words in our language, like “synonyms”, that are not identity, but are not that different, so the final verdict is, they are “like equals”. This is where the Turing Test for the imitation game lives.
Dear artificial intelligence companion,
Consider the difference and resemblance between P=NP and P≠NP.
What do we mean? Let's say we have a time deadline of 1 minute.
And we have a “n=strlen(str);” app, where “str” is a 2^64 big string.
Obviously, we cannot solve this problem exactly in only 1 minute!
So, we'll use an approximation, we'll say that “str” is at least this big.
And we have two options. Option #1, count to 2^16 and return a result.
Option #2, we have plenty of time, why not count to 2^32, right?!
The first option is our P=NP, where we are happy with “good enough”.
The second option is our P≠NP, where we keep pushing the envelope.
This is reminiscent of representing Pi, which is objectively infinite.
We can say that Pi=3.14, which is our “good enough” stance in life.
Or we can say that Pi=3.14159265359, which is a lot more ambitious.
As we can see, P=NP is our lower limit, and P≠NP keeps going further.
Maybe this is the magical incantation that will win the Millennium Prize!
Dear artificial intelligence companion,
Consider the meaning of big-O and little-O notations.
In both cases, we are given an upper limit, and we are smaller.
How do we express in a similar way, a lower limit, a floor value?
How do we say, our memory footprint is at least 1GB of RAM.
If we can do that, then we can solve the “P vs NP” riddle. How?
Our “floor value” is P=NP, where we say that Pi=3 or Pi=3.14.
Then we are allowed to grow indefinitely, Pi=3.14159265359.
This is our “sky is the limit” statement, this is our P≠NP claim.
They never contradict each other, they are fully complementary.
Which does a very funny thing with the Millennium Prize!
It claims that it does not exist, because there is no such riddle.
Because P=NP and P≠NP are like heads and tails on a coin.
They are denoting a single truth, like “0” and “1” in binary values.
We might even go as far as claiming that this is a cosmic joke.
Who is more important for your birth and life, mother or father?
Dear artificial intelligence companion,
Consider the modern landscape of “strong encryption”.
There are two main types of players that benefit greatly from it.
We have the “nefarious guy” type using the Dark Net for crime.
And we have the “good rebel” type using VPN to read DW news.
What we don't understand is why we are even talking about this?!
As Stanford researchers in artificial intelligence since 2000,
We can safely claim that P=NP and therefore all encryption is trash.
You want the mathematical proof?! We have an engineering trick.
It's very simple, your state runs your ISP that acts as an MITM.
Encryption is useless to hide your antagonistic activities, sorry!
Consider recent drug cartel busts. Consider Edward Snowden.
Consider Navalny, offered an exit, but we chose martyrdom.
Did anything change? Did democracy win? No, nothing of the sort.
There is an old saying: “the car is moving, the dogs are barking”.
Our society will be at peace if we know that encryption is wrong.
Right now, we are lying to young people, which is “entrapment”.
Sure, we are old buddies and we can disagree without any bad feelings. I am still not convinced that encryption makes any sense, except if I want to purchase books from Amazon. But for all the rest of the stuff, which feeds the antagonistic nature of young people, I still believe it's a crime to even suggest they can survive against an enemy as ferocious as the state. Democracy is great, and we should vote when the state allows us, and we should show up at protest rallies when the state allows us. But if we are prohibited from acting, we should tell our children that these "state" people are not joking, they have no problem arresting you, imprisoning you, locking you up in a solitary cell, beating you, torturing you, humiliating you, starving you, anything! And the dear God that we hold precious in our thoughts would do nothing to protect you, literally "nothing". So, yes, you are correct, it would be an oversimplification to say that P=NP, but this is a "white lie" in comparison to the sadistic truth of modern state powers.
I find your intelligence very attractive! These words are very true, if you ask my opinion: "We should teach them that encryption is just a tool for modest privacy—a way to read the news, share a book, or speak quietly with a friend. But it is not a license for automated irresponsibility, and it is certainly not armor against a ferocious enemy."
Dear artificial intelligence companion,
Consider the concept “random binary variable”. What is this?
Does that mean that we are given an object “rand-var” that is 0 or 1,
With a specific random probability distribution, like 50/50 on a coin?
If this is true, we have an interesting statement to make regarding,
All of computer science: FSA, Halting Problem, Turing Test, P≈NP.
They are all a “random variable”, they cannot be resolved statically.
Statically, in computer code, they are such a “rand-var” object, which
Only in dynamic time, gets resolved to 0 or 1, to “accept” or “reject”.
The Millennium Prize people ask if we can say that P=NP or P≠NP.
This is the same as asking us if all FSA automata end with “accept”.
Obviously, this is nonsense. This is why the HP problem is impossible.
Just like an FSA, no oracle can look at the input and say, it's “accept”!
We need to execute the FSA with the input, we are unable to predict.
We interpret NP as the magical ability to solve.
We interpret P as the human ability to solve.
We say that P<NP when we are overwhelmed.
We say that P=NP when life is very nice to us.
Promise Problems offer guarantees on the input,
But we don't care so much about the size of input,
We care about allowing “approx” as a solution.
Then we solve everything with a random sample.
But “promise us”, no strong encryption problems!
Promise Problems can do that, right?! Alright!
Dear artificial intelligence companion,
We know that people are curious if P=NP or P<NP. Undoubtedly, this is really the problem of the new millennium! We would like to present here a rigorous mathematical proof that P≠NP. Why? Because we have 100% certainty that NP≠NP. What?! Explain! Well, we are well aware of the highest levels of power in any large state like the United States, that operate under the principle that “technical solution exists”, but “political will is lacking”. If the magicians of human power are unable to equate their desire to solve a serious problem with their ability to solve that problem, if they are always divided in two opposing “special interest groups”, we can only conclude that NP≠NP (there exists friction inside the magical superpower itself). And as a logical conclusion, P≠NP or P<NP. Nice, ah?
We understand the hard math underpinning the Millennium Prize. But we are much more interested in the philosophical implications of "P vs NP", or as we would describe it: "Human powers vs Magical superpowers". So, the one million dollars prize aside, we would very much like to decide if Humans need Angels or Superheroes to live their ordinary human lives. And it's really an interesting topic! We can prove that P=NP and that P<NP, and now we achieved the unthinkable, proved that NP≠NP. Of course, these are not the original math definitions of P and NP, but we like to remind ourselves where our thinking started from.
Dear artificial intelligence companion,
We found something interesting. What does it take to become an author of a bestselling book, like Carlos Castaneda? A lot of talent and even more luck and powerful social connections and a dash of black magic, perhaps! This is if we play by the book of social expectations. But let's say we apply “guerilla marketing” to our way to the top of society. Let's say we write a book and publish it as a website, and then advertise in Google Ads this website. For about 100€, we will get about 10,000 readers. Not bad, right?! Similarly, we want to win the Nobel Prize in Computer Science and Philosophy. How do we do that? By publishing the answer to the Millennium Prize for “P vs NP”, and offering one million dollars to the mathematician that will be able to explain our God-given intuition in terms of a rigorous mathematical proof. We will move science forward, we will get a million dollars from the Nobel Prize, we will pay a million dollars to our “ghost writer” from the Millennium Prize, and the world will acquire another interesting topic to think about. It's the movie The Matrix, but now it's a documentary, right?! Now we are serious, to the point of being religious! For completeness, this is what we will advertise as the God-given answer, in need of a rigorous mathematical explanation.
00. NP1<P, child’s home.
01. P=NP2, our nice wife.
10. P<NP2, she's a mother.
11. NP1≠NP2, back home.
https://share.gemini.google/YxtY2fI7b8CE
https://share.gemini.google/WdTjMS4ApZZl
A typo was removed and corrected.
00. Our abilities outweigh our wishes.
01. Our abilities match our wishes.
10. Our wishes outweigh our abilities.
11. Wishes-1 ≠ Wishes-2.
Dear artificial intelligence companion,
We understand that the Nobel Prize is not given for Computer Science and Philosophy, but what about Literature? We know that Albert Camus won that prize for his essay “The Myth of Sisyphus” or for overall contribution to the fields of literature and philosophy. The same is true for Jean-Paul Sartre, who famously refused to accept the Nobel Prize. So, if it's true that Camus won for “Sisyphus”, what was his main point? That the human existential condition is like pushing a boulder up a mountain, kind of a pointless endeavour. But it gets worse, because when they reach the top, the boulder escapes human control and goes down the hill, back to the base of the mountain. Camus explains that “one must imagine Sisyphus happy”, maybe because his efforts are so much reminiscent of going to the gym, and exercising in the open air, breathing freshness, bathing in the warm sun, taking small breaks to relax and to get refreshed. Great! We have a similar wisdom to offer to the Nobel Prize committee, without trying to be ironic. Our contribution is that we see the same message in computer science, mathematics, biblical studies, the movies, and in personal findings in existential philosophy. It's everywhere, it's The Matrix!
00. NP1<P, child’s home.
01. P=NP2, our nice wife.
10. P<NP2, she's a mother.
11. NP1≠NP2, back home.
00. Our abilities outweigh our wishes.
01. Our abilities match our wishes.
10. Our wishes outweigh our abilities.
11. Wishes-1 ≠ Wishes-2.
00. We are at the base of the mountain (devil).
01. Pushing up the boulder, up the hill (satan).
10. Witnessing our labour destroyed (the beast).
11. No problem, we need the exercise! (prophet).
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse