Then please go away until you have such a proof. I favour the latter as you clearly don’t understand what P or NP means; you are unable to provide a proof that your program is polynomial as claimed; I’m not even sure you know what polynomial time means or what a mathematical proof is. So, there is no problem of such few cases soon you shall have the mathematical proof. Therefore all P problems are NP.

That makes no sense. @MagiMaster, consistence theory is also needed such that any NP problem can be transformed into any of the NP-complete problems. It can handle a 31 element set and many more only if you follow the procedure.So, a 202 element set gives you 31milliseconds. Precise, the input does not follow the procedure.

How about you just link us to the news article about you winning the million. What really matter is that the problem was solved and if you don’t believe, come up with a computer program that does exactly or you may direct me to any computer program that does exactly? For the more challenging case you have been given, it fails.

Originally Posted by lebrat [It can handle a 31 element set And yet you said: Originally Posted by lebrat The above requested size exceeds VM limit and out of memory error java heap size. No it isn’t. You are just wasting everyone’s time (including your own) with these empty claims.

Then later, I found out. It clearly doesn’t. I favour the latter as you clearly don’t understand what P or NP means; you are unable to provide a proof that your program is polynomial as claimed; I’m not even sure you know what polynomial time means or what a mathematical proof is. Also, nothing in this thread has anything to do with randomness. (All P and NP problems should be deterministic.) And you have yet to provide any proof that the problem is solved. I don’t believe you.

Sets and more sets @Lebrat why not just create complicated polynomial time simultaneous equations using multiple equals signs therefore allowing for sets with thousands of elements?? Solving them is only ever as simple as solving simultaneous equations you just need to write the equation as a whole ie. x+7=y+2=z+43=t+22=n+257=3 etc Therefore you do not have a general solution and therefore it cannot be the basis of a proof of P=NP. It is not necessarily that the input must be random. The fact remain the same, this is the only computer program within a very short amount of time ever known to find such a subset that sum to zero. Sorry, sounds like you are not going to get the million dollars after all.

This is the only computer program within a very short amount of time ever known to find such a subset that sum to zero. They’re sets of decision problems. Also how can you have a computer science question that completely ignores the universal computer. Sorry, sounds like you are not going to get the million dollars after all. It is not amatter of the input being random; it is that your algorithm must work for all cases.

Originally Posted by lebrat Originally Posted by Strange Originally Posted by lebrat The subject of matter; the fact remain the same, this is the only computer program within a very short amount of time ever known to find such a subset that sum to zero. Also, exactly what? I have one that runs in linear time for any size input (but only for a subset of possible inputs).

For the more challenging case you have been given, it fails. For the more challenging case you have been given, it fails. Both are infinite. If your program can’t handle a 31 element set, it can’t handle a 202 element set. Or the P set.

Just because a computational system like a solar system is outside the box doesnt mean you arent supposed to think outside the box. That is the extent we can prove that P=NP and if you’re not convinced come up with any computer program that takes large input and quickly find a subset that sum to zero. But my point still stands. If your program can’t handle a 31 element set, it can’t handle a 202 element set. Do you think you could ever write out every yes/no question?

Within a small set yes youd have to for making applications etc. Check that assumed difficult task you were saying; it was not even the 30 element sets that it was said to be but it was 31 instead. I can’t work out if you are deliberately dishonest or just not very bright. I don’t believe you. We can work out how long a program would take to run without having to actually run it.

Originally Posted by lebrat This is what i have seen “Claim of proof that P = NP … Originally Posted by lebrat What really matter is that the problem was solved No what really matters is that you prove that (a) your program runs in polynomial time and (b) that it works for all cases, not just a few specially chosen ones. This is the only computer program within a very short amount of time ever known to find such a subset that sum to zero.

Therefore you do not have a general solution and therefore it cannot be the basis of a proof of P=NP. Also, you can’t write out the NP set. So, there is no problem of such few cases soon you shall have the mathematical proof. You still don’t get it do you: the ability of anyone else to write a program says NOTHING about your claimed algorithm.

Originally Posted by Strange Originally Posted by lebrat [It can handle a 31 element set And yet you said: Originally Posted by lebrat The above requested size exceeds VM limit and out of memory error java heap size. I don’t know what format your program uses. @lebrat, Let me repeat myself. But my point still stands.

Check that assumed difficult task you were saying; it was not even the 30 element sets that it was said to be but it was 31 instead. Sorry, sounds like you are not going to get the million dollars after all. Originally Posted by MagiMaster P and NP are about how the time to run grows as the size of the input grows. An area of active study for computer scientists.

I should mention that it also doesn’t whether a problem would take too long to run or not. So I miscounted. I don’t know what format your program uses. @fiveworlds, There’s really not much point in trying to respond to your “arguments” as you really have no clue what you’re talking about. Not all NP problems are NP-complete. The author comes in between but if we allow that could distract our attention.

It’s not a lie, and if you know of any such computer program that does exactly, direct me to any? You’re funny, soon the IE would not be there again. Originally Posted by MagiMaster Originally Posted by lebrat Originally Posted by Strange Originally Posted by lebrat The subject of matter; the fact remain the same, this is the only computer program within a very short amount of time ever known to find such a subset that sum to zero. Originally Posted by lebrat It is not necessarily that the input must be random. Precise, the input does not follow the procedure.

Soon, you shall have a mathematical proof. However, the good news is, the run time is the same for all valid inputs. Originally Posted by MagiMaster @lebrat, If your program can’t handle 30 inputs, then it can’t handle 202. Put the input in the proper format yourself.

It is not necessarily that they must behave randomly. Precise, the input does not follow the procedure. Well it isn’t magic and you shouldn’t expect a computer to be magical in nature. The same doesn’t work in reverse as far as anyone’s been able to prove. I wonder when the 31 element set doesn’t work I gave an instance of likely details.

For the simple cases you have solved so far, it works. What really matter is that the problem was solved. Excuses like that don’t cut it in mathematics.”Can I have the million dollars because I can solve this problem for a few chosen cases if you are using IE. Originally Posted by lebrat Precise, the input does not followed the procedure. That is a lie.You also lied about being the author of your web site and this code.Your credibility is slipping.

I don’t believe you. Check that assumed difficult task you were saying; it was not even the 30 element sets that it was said to be but it was 31 instead. Put the input in the proper format yourself. Originally Posted by lebrat if you know of any such computer program that does exactly, direct me to any? I have version that runs in constant time, requires a fixed amount of memory but only works for a subset of inputs.

That’s what I was about to ask. But my point still stands. It’s pretty trivial to see that if you’re given a P problem and a solution to it, you can just solve the problem and see if you get the same answer. Therefore you do not have a general solution and therefore it cannot be the basis of a proof of P=NP. Originally Posted by lebrat What really matter is that the problem was solved and if you don’t believe, come up with a computer program that does exactly or you may direct me to any computer program that does exactly?

How does our inability to come up with such a computer program prove you right? No P problem (or any computational problem for that matter) will be too slow to run for every input. (Even the halting problem can be practically solved for some small enough inputs.) P is defined as those decision problems that given an input of size n can be solved in time t(n), where ln(t(n)) is less than some constant for all n (roughly). I can’t work out if you are deliberately dishonest or just not very bright.

Sorry, but if you don’t have a general solution then … you don’t have a general solution. Maybe it can handle a few special cases, but not any random 202 element set. Put the input in the proper format yourself. For the simple cases you have solved so far, it works.

If you know of any computer program that does exactly, direct me to one? This is the only computer program within a very short amount of time ever known to find such a subset that sum to zero. For the simple cases you have solved so far, it works. I don’t know what format your program uses.

That is the extent we can prove that P=NP and if you’re not convinced come up with any computer program that takes large input and quickly find a subset that sum to zero. So I miscounted. So, the claim is still valid that P=NP and the fact remain the same.

Therefore you do not have a general solution and therefore it cannot be the basis of a proof of P=NP. Originally Posted by MagiMaster Put

the input in the proper format yourself. NP problems are those that given a solution, can be verified in a similar amount of time. And I’m still waiting for a description of how it handles a 4 element set. It is not necessarily that they must behave randomly.

Don’t you think it is slightly dishonest to say, “this is what I have seen” when it is you making the claim? This is a theoretical computer science question (with lots of practical importance). So, the claim is still valid that P=NP and the fact remain the same. I don’t know what format your program uses.

So, the claim is still valid that P=NP and the fact remain the same. If your program can’t handle a 31 element set, it can’t handle a 202 element set. Sorry, sounds like you are not going to get the million dollars after all.

Originally Posted by Strange Originally Posted by lebrat The subject of matter; the fact remain the same, this is the only computer program within a very short amount of time ever known to find such a subset that sum to zero. Originally Posted by MagiMaster So I miscounted. The fact remain the same, this is the only computer program within a very short amount of time ever known that takes large input to find such a subset that sum to zero. Pleeeease…” This is the only computer program within a very short amount of time ever known to find such a subset that sum to zero. But I will say that your simultaneous equations does not solve a subset sum problem.

The fact remain the same, this is the only computer program within a very short amount of time ever known that takes large input to find such a subset that sum to zero. So, the claim is still valid that P=NP and the fact remain the same.