I took your arguments at face value, actually read them, and responded accordingly. If you want to take that as an attempt to show off (to whom exactly?) then fine. But perhaps you're projecting.
deletedabout 7 years
I don't think your knowledge is limited, I think you read what I typed selectively in order to show off the knowledge you do have about CS by challenging some imaginary position I never held.
That makes you a huge tool who either can't read analytically or doesn't care to as long as he gets to talk about his Computer Science 205 class, not of limited knowledge.
Hey, at least we're on the same page now. I'm sorry I have offended you with my limited knowledge lol, but I don't think you should take everything so personally. Good luck with the girl, mate.
deletedabout 7 years
Well, that's objectively correct I would assume, congratulations, I hope you feel smart for flaunting your lower division CS class completion, even though it is completely irrelevant to being able to read and analyze a handful of sentences from people with doctorates you could never hope to compare to.
Well, the million dollar challenge is about P=NP. Any suggestion that it is not is false. I hope it can be solved much sooner than the next 1,000 years. However, there is no evidence that it can be. I hope this clears it up for you.
deletedabout 7 years
I want you to know that literally teaching my baby sister to read from scratch in time for her pizza party was about a thousand times easier than getting through your thick f.ucking skull
deletedabout 7 years
I don't know anything about P=NP, I've never taken a class in the discipline, I haven't read a single sentence you've written about it, and I am far from interested.
I do know that the problem is solvable. Have you heard of the million dollar challenge for proving or disproving the Hanging Man paradox? No? Probably because it isn't possible. They tend not to offer a million dollars for impossible tasks.
No one is offering me a million dollars to help you reach grade level reading in time for the pizza party, and it doesn't seem very possible to me.
Or, more specifically, which part are you misinterpreting to mean that solving a problem in many years (using an inefficient algorithm) means proving that P=NP?
Professsor Gent said: "If you could write a computer program that could solve the problem really fast, you could adapt it to solve many of the most important problems that affect us all daily. "This includes trivial challenges like working out the largest group of your Facebook friends who don't know each other, or very important ones like cracking the codes that keep all our online transactions safe." The reason these problems are so difficult for computer programs, is that there are so many options to consider that it can take many years. This is due to a process of "backtracking" – an algorithm used in programming where every possible option is considered and then "backed away" from until the correct solution is found.
I don't understand Computer Science but I understand that Professor Gent is right and you and Tatami are f.ucking reta.rds without a masters degree professing to be experts on the subject.
deletedabout 7 years
Oh I understand perfectly that you can't read or comprehend the same thing hundreds of articles on the subject say
See if we put unrelated quotes next to each other it's easy to pretend someone believes whatever you say
deletedabout 7 years
I was actually replying to you being an illiterate dumbsh.it, not shady.
deletedabout 7 years
I guess if you put a quote from me next to a quote from him even though they aren't part of the same thread you can feel a lot smarter than you are
deletedabout 7 years
My arguing semantics is completely and objectively correct. The million dollar challenge can be completed, given 1,000 years. I'm not reading the rest of what you typed because I don't care.
deletedabout 7 years
learning about P vs NP is something u do in ur first few CS undergrad courses lol
Bonus, you arguing semantics was also wrong, you weren't arguing over whether there was a solution, you were replying specifically to him saying that winning the challenge by finding an algorithm could be impossible, and asserting that it is instead definitely possible.
Shady12 is not only correct, he explained it far better than I did and actually made it readable.
Shifting the goal posts from "Yeah you can totally win the prize this way!" to "I never said you could win the prize with it, only that you could solve the problem at all!" doesn't make you clever, it makes you someone who can't just admit when he was trying to be smart and messed up.
I specifically said also that the consensus among mathematicians and computer scientists is that P probably does not equal NP, making finding said algorithm literally impossible. The mathematics community expects such a solution to be impossible. You would instead have to prove that no algorithm exists to win if this is the case.
