P =/= NP Proof (The Theory of Everything)

Polynomial time problems are known to problems exist. Assume Existence exists. By definition everything in existence is in existence. This means nothing can’t exist. Therefore the concept of not or non, can’t exist, as this implies non existence. This means that Nondeterministic-polynomial time problems can’t exist. Existence can’t equal non-existence. Thus, P=/=NP. As a result, there is only P. Thus a paradox P=NP & P=/=NP. The concept of not exists. Therefore not exists and is a part of everything. Thus a paradox P=NP & P=/=NP. Everything is and isn't. However, everything can't be and not be at the same time. Therefore there needs to to exist a reality where everything is and a reality where everything isn't! Therefore there are 2 realities! However, there also needs to exist a reality where paradoxes are true because paradoxes are included in everything. Therefore, there are 3 realities. One where P=NP, one where P=/=NP, and one where both exist at once. The other can't exist because both p=np and p=/=np are false. Making true nothingness.

(By the way, this is also The Theory of Everything)

I have a book where I published this finding where I'm trying to get the word out.

~Michael Barry “I Got Clap But Im Not A Clapper”

closed as off-topic by Frank Hubeny, Not_Here, rus9384, Nick R, Canyon Aug 24 '18 at 19:16

  • This question does not appear to be about philosophy within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

locked by Philip Klöcking Aug 25 '18 at 7:31

This post has been locked due to the high amount of off-topic comments generated. For extended discussions, please use chat.

Read more about locked posts here.

  • 9
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's nonsense – Not_Here Aug 24 '18 at 18:22
  • 4
    Alright here's my single line proof that it's nonsense: "NP" is not "non-polynomial time"; that is one of the biggest mistakes people who have no background in computational complexity make. And I advise you not to try and weasel word your way out with something like "well I do know what it means, I just didn't say it right" because you literally said "Non-polynomial time problems can’t exist". We have actual proofs that there are problems in EXP that are not in P, which means "non polynomial time" problems do exist, so you're just absolutely wrong. – Not_Here Aug 24 '18 at 18:28
  • 1
    Nondeterministic polynomial time as any quick Google search will tell you. What you said and what that says are two completely different things, if you can't recognize that you need to go back and actually learn the material. – Not_Here Aug 24 '18 at 18:32
  • 1
    You say non or not cannot exist. What a paradox? And by the way, it appears you must have some illegal things in your pockets, or do you say "No"? – rus9384 Aug 24 '18 at 18:41
  • 1
    You changed two words in your post, you did not provide an explanation of what any of the vague terms you're using are purported to mean, nor why your argument that clearly uses the conception of negation to prove that negation cannot exist is true. It's a nonsensical argument and I really suggest that you go and review some basic material on the subject and then come back if you have more well thought out questions. Your argument, putting aside all of the other issues, falls apart when you realize that NP doesn't mean "non polynomial" – Not_Here Aug 24 '18 at 18:45

This proof cannot possibly be correct, because it doesn't use any properties of P or NP, except perhaps that NP involves some kind of negation. Thus, if the proof were correct, it would also imply the exact same thing for PSPACE vs NPSPACE. But we actually know that PSPACE=NPSPACE by Savitch's theorem. (See, e.g., here: http://www.cs.nthu.edu.tw/~wkhon/lectures/lecture23.pdf)

  • You're mistaken. P is a property of everything. – Michael Barry Aug 24 '18 at 17:39
  • @present Please help the poster and the readers by expanding on your answer. – Mark Andrews Aug 24 '18 at 18:27
  • I have expanded it as requested. – present Aug 24 '18 at 19:35
  • Interesting. Let me think on this. Are there any other similar problems that you can think of also? – Michael Barry Aug 24 '18 at 19:59

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.