Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

P=NP is impossible on a turing machine

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-09 12:10

The reason?

Because you can not add in one motion.  It is impossible to be given numbers: 3,4,6 and add three to each in one motion.  If this was possible NP complete problems would be simple.  Without this criteria it is impossible to solve NP complete problems without exponential time.

The problem of NP complete problems are not suited to the computer.  Another means of calculation would be better suited.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-11 21:15

P=NP is unscientific and ultimately destructive.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-11 21:21

>>40
In which we learn not to "fix" things we don't understand. He must be a Debian developer.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-11 22:11

>>37
Good luck with that

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-12 6:51

I LIKE TO FACTOR LARGE NUMBERS IN LINEAR TIME

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-12 7:08

>>40
``. --'' is not acceptable punctuation.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-12 7:12

“‘Universe’ refers to space, not the matter in it” — Retard

Fixed.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-12 9:17

>>44
Really? I prefer to factor them O(lg n) time.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-12 9:46

>>47
faggot

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-12 15:57

>>46
hurr I cover up my lack of knowledge with insults.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-12 16:10

>>49
lrn2humor

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-12 19:02

>>50
This isn't about humor. >>49 is butthurt because people are rightly calling him a retard.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-12 19:03

>>51
IHBT

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-12 19:04

>>52
YHBT

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-12 19:04

WHBT

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-12 19:04

>>54
IHNBT

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-12 19:04

>>55
YHBT

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-12 21:42

>>1-56
SPAWHBTC

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-12 21:47

>>52-57
Now you're just making up acronyms.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-12 23:38

>>58
Actually SPAWHBTC is quite common and easy to understand. So are most of the others.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-13 4:24

>>59
YHBT

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-13 4:50

>>60
Now you're just making up acronyms.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-13 5:00

NYJMUA

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-13 5:19

>>62
I lol'd for no reason at all.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-13 8:06

I suspect in this thread are three different people, and that we have been trolled at a rate previously unknown to mankind.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-31 20:10

<-- check em dubz

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-03 20:52

>>64
I'm crying. A Beautiful end to this amazing thread.

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-03 21:03

>>65
where the hell is 65?

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-03 21:16

YIN YANG GET and I don't know. Probably a post with a link to something highly volatile that MVB had to get rid of.

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-03 21:22

>>66
where is 65?

are you a wizard?

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-03 23:44

Someone harnessed the set theory.
Did 65 ever exist?

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-04 1:04

>>65

Damn Nigel.

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-04 2:33

>>65

we miss you >>65-san

Name: Sgt.Kabukiman坭⋌ 2012-05-23 15:19

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

Name: bampu pantsu 2012-05-29 3:45

bampu pantsu

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List