How can I have asserted this position when I don't even understand what you just said? Is it even possible for me to have believed this thing I don't understand?

When I said provable solution, I meant proving that the axiom is true or false. It may be that it can neither be proven true nor proven false.

If you want to submit that paragraph to the institute, I wholeheartedly accept. I'm sure they accept email.

Actually, what I'm quoted here saying is correcting a third part saying that the challenge is certainly solvable via finding an algorithm in polynomial time, instead stating that it is likely not possible to find such a thing according to current mathematical opinion, and that a proof of the opposite is more likely.

I thought I was done, but I'll say one more thing. The paragraph which you conveniently ignored from SENPAI's post, in non-CS terms, says that there may be no provable solution to the problem. That - stay with me here for a second - would mean that the million dollar challenge is impossible. Leading mathematicians have no consensus on how, when, or if the problem will ever be solved.

Recidivism says

It's not impossible, it's very possible.

This is completely wrong.

I guess this is why I couldn't finish college.

I think I've made my point, you made a clear claim and couldn't stand when me/shady explained why that's not necessarily true.

I haven't submitted an answer to P equals NP at all, only stating that it is possible either way but that most of the mathematics community thinks that P does not equal NP.

The irony of accusing others of being illiterate.

Recidivism: "It's very possible [to solve via efficient algorithm" "Why waste time trying to prove it impossible?"

Tatami/shady12: "Actually it's more likely impossible"

Recidivism: "I never said it wasn't"

I don't go to college. I work on an oil rig. I am still right. Does this bother you?

I have repeatedly said that the challenge is solvable via disproving it, but you repeatedly asserted that the efficient algorithm solution was possible (it might not be) and that trying to disprove it was a waste of time that would get you absolutely nowhere.

Why don't you look up the challenge, tool! It's definitely possible to complete it, and earn the one million dollars, one way or the other.

Recidivism says

My arguing semantics is completely and objectively correct. The million dollar challenge can be completed, given 1,000 years.

Recidivism says

Actually you responded to my axiomatic claim that the challenge is possible to solve

Recidivism says

I do know that the problem is solvable.

Recidivism says

What I am saying is that the challenge is possible, which it is, which is why there is a million dollar prize for it, which isn't going to go to some kid like you who gives up on it after 90 seconds because it's too hard any damn way.

Recidivism says

The challenge is possible, according to every single paper on the subject. The challenge is to prove or disprove it.

If Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is correct (which it generally is regarded to be), it's possible that P != NP is true, but not provable.
If P does equal to NP, so there IS an algorithm that can solve an NP complete problem in polynomial time, you can definitely find it. However, you also have to prove that this characteristic of the algorithm is true, which, again, may not be possible.

And even IF proving it is theoretically possible, doing so could take longer than the lifetime of the universe.



I love how you always write whatever is on your mind, don't stop. Just accept/admit it when you were wrong. Everyone's wrong all the time, most people just keep their wrong opinions to themselves, normally.