The fact that thousands of people have failed to prove that P=NP indication that it is probably not true. It has even been proven that it cannot be proven by some methods.
Here's a proof of P neq NP: https://zenodo.org/records/17913205
Authors write subtitle: "Conditional for Abstract Computation, Unconditional for Physical Reality"
I agree. Computational limits become physical law, not algorithmic puzzles. Cryptography is unconditionally secure. NP-hard problems require approximation, not solution. AI must be heuristic, not exhaustive. Understanding what physics forbids, not just what we haven't achieved -> focuses effort productively.
5 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 24.2 ms ] threadFrom the original twit:
> I had a dream where P=NP.
Did this poster, in their dream, solve P=NP or they just heard it had already been solved?
Then after waking up from this dream they asked some slop slinger if P=NP?!?
From the follow up article:
> I guess by now you have a better understanding of why I thought I was crazy when I woke up thinking P=NP.
What do the details matter? Last week I had a dream that my childhood rat was the president of space. That's what dreams do.
> fun story: I still remember those “random oracles” that we used to proof cryptographic primitives in college
So someone who previously used 'random oracles' to prove 'cryptographic primitives' had to ask a slop slinger if P=NP?!?
I agree. Computational limits become physical law, not algorithmic puzzles. Cryptography is unconditionally secure. NP-hard problems require approximation, not solution. AI must be heuristic, not exhaustive. Understanding what physics forbids, not just what we haven't achieved -> focuses effort productively.