And it's a good thing that you didn't understand what the challenge was and told shady he was wrong when he was completely right.
deletedabout 7 years
million dollar challenge: has to be possible because the million dollar question is to prove whether or not the queens problem is possible. either a. prove it is possible or b. prove it is impossible. which means by definition this challenge has to be possible because the solution exists.
Also f.ucking thank you, here is someone I believe will lead a successful life.
deletedabout 7 years
Woah, I guess it's a good thing I explicitly used the term Million Dollar Challenge before I got hit with a bunch of sanctimonious CS 101 from a college dropout on an oil rig.
million dollar challenge: has to be possible because the million dollar question is to prove whether or not the queens problem is possible. either a. prove it is possible or b. prove it is impossible. which means by definition this challenge has to be possible because the solution exists.
queens puzzle: contingent on whether or not million dollar challenge is possible. no one has solved it, meaning we can't verify whether it is possible or impossible, which means for now it's either neither or both
I'm sorry the world is not black and white. I don't know whether it's possible or not. If you want to use possible to mean "either possible or impossible" then go ahead.
I'm going to laugh so f.ucking hard if they're wrong about the thing I can't figure out if they're wrong about because I don't understand it
deletedabout 7 years
can anyone actually find a paper that claims p vs np is impossible to prove ?
deletedabout 7 years
Sure I am, look up the word possible. If you don't know what it means, that is on you.
deletedabout 7 years
I've never said an efficient algorithm was possible, I said the million dollar challenge is possible. I don't even understand the word algorithm beyond the etymology.
Me saying you are wrong in asserting it is wholly possible, yes, and my immediate followup explicitly states this.
You are the only one interpreting it that way and every followup I have made makes it clear that I was referring only to you saying an efficient algorithm was definitely possible.
deletedabout 7 years
Trophies have nothing to do with anything, and neither do the opinions of the epicmafia peanut gallery.
We're going to submit your opinions as a paper, professionally, to an academic journal.
And then I am going to read you the rejection letter.
And then either you prove that you are in fact a genius capable of being published in an academic journal without a degree, or you face stark reality like everyone else has to.
deletedabout 7 years
It's not possible for that statement to be wrong. It's a fact. Do you know what possible means?
pos·si·ble ˈpäsəb(ə)l/Submit adjective 1. able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something. "surely it's not possible for a man to live so long?" synonyms: feasible, practicable, practical, viable, within the bounds/realms of possibility, attainable, achievable, workable; informaldoable "it's not possible to check the figures" noun 1. a person or thing that has the potential to become or do something, especially a potential candidate for a job or membership on a team. "I have marked five possibles with an asterisk"
I'm sorry that a college dropout and a dude who doesn't even have a trophy understand more about what you said than you do, because you can't even take the time to tab back. Sorry to hear it.
deletedabout 7 years
There is no way you can possibly interpret this in any other way than you saying it is impossible.
Let's take this to PM if you want. I will write you a formatted paper better than anything you've ever submitted to anything using your own words and concepts. I will let you approve it before submission, so long as it has the title I want. And then I will read you the rejection letter, and you'll be a better man for it.
Well, shady said "Finding an efficient algorithm may be impossible", and you shot back "It's not impossible, it's very possible", and that was a wrong statement and his is correct, so here we are today.
