User talk:123qweasd-tk/Proof for NP unequal P by Thomas Käfer


 * A parallel discussion, closed and archived is at Special:Permalink/2607871

Concerns over accuracy
I'm concerned that this alleged proof doesn't actually address the w:P versus NP problem, as it lacks any reference to complexity classes or a theory of computation. Approaching this problem from the philosophical direction of substructural logic (e.g. Brüning's "strict logic") is unlikely to yield a mathematically sound result.

In particular, the following two statements in your draft are simply incorrect:

"P-problems can be transcribed with Pure Logic as follows [...]

At NP-problems (decision problems), on the other side, it is known that the solution is an individual case [...]"

This fundamentally misstates the distinction between P and NP problems. Both classes of problems are decision problems; the distinction between the two is that NP tasks can be proven to be unsolvable in polynomial time.

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 23:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The point is that NP-Problems have two individuals (Input and Output). One Individual is easy to denote. But mathematical logic is not able to denote individuals properly, because $$p$$ in mathematical logic is itself an individual.
 * 'substructural', I didn't find in the translator. 123qweasd (discuss • contribs) 23:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The point is that NP-Problems have two individuals (Input and Output). That's true of all decision problems, regardless of their complexity class. I'm concerned you may not fully understand the problem you're trying to propose a solution to here.
 * A w:substructural logic is a type of non-classical logic which lacks some of the rules of classical logic. Brüning's "strict logic", which is a type of w:relevance logic, is one such logic.
 * Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 23:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If a P-problem is a decision problem, then the input is not individual. It can be applied multiple times then.
 * Thank you for the links. I did looked up substructural logic before your answer arrived. I now looked up relevance logic. I see it is not comparable, since the first axiom already is A -> A. In strict logic by Brüning a cicumstance can only be in relation to itself only in identity. In fact, Brüning does not use any axioms.
 * I do not know, if it is appropriate to discuss a 229 pages book in this shortness, but I am open for discussion. 123qweasd (discuss • contribs) 00:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I propose to move it to a user space or delete it; it is very unlikely to be correct. The text looks unconvincing, but even if it was convincing, what is the chance we would be able to review it and find possible subtle mistakes? In general, to accept Wikiversity as a publishing venue for a proof that P!=NP seems problematic to me. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As an aside, it is untrue that "NP tasks can be proven to be unsolvable in polynomial time": the only thing we know about NP problems is that they are soluble in non-deterministic polynomial time; whether they are also soluble in deterministic polynomial time we do not know and that is the crux of the P=?NP problem. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As superstition is a probability depended phenomena, it is non-determinstic. (Between two synthesis a moment has to pass) The case that probable events happen, includes that not-probable events may happen. (Applied Logic). As you can calculate a probability it is Pure Logic. But this calculation is Applied Logic again, and so on and so forth... 123qweasd-tk (discuss • contribs) 15:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * P-problems have one a-position to conclude and as shown in the table excursion convential computers need four a-positions to conclude a NP-problem, hence exponential. 123qweasd-tk (discuss • contribs) 17:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Edit: P-problems have two a-positions
 * 123qweasd-tk (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Edit: entanglement not superstition. My English is not the yellow of the egg, but it goes ;-) 123qweasd-tk (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for this inappropiate joke, but I crap for the stars, as also my brother would say. 123qweasd-tk (discuss • contribs) 12:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As further to the exponential longer runtime, there exists also a linear longer runtime by concluding with the n positions. 123qweasd-tk (discuss • contribs) 12:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Concern about multiple user accounts
On THIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE you wrote the following: "::::I wrote an article in german wikipedia: strenge Logik. Sorry, but ... 123qweasd (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)"

But I could not find your name (123qweasd) at the article's HISTORY PAGE. Do you have multiple accounts? And if so, why? Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The article Strenge Logik is a Multilemma now. The article you refer to (which I refered to) is now Walther Brüning in German Wikipedia. There is also a redirection in the new article Strenge Logik to Walther Brüning#Strenge Logik, if you look closely.
 * Edit: Kind of a multilemma. I proposed to delete Strenge Logik, as german Wikipedia has other guidelines than english Wikipedia, concerning theory-establishment. It was then transfered to a new article. (unsigned comment by 123qweasd)
 * Thank's for clarifyingGuy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion continues
It is now understood that: (1) 123qweasd was not dishonest in claiming that he wrote an article on the German Wikipedia, and (2) all but 123qweasd are certain this effort to solve such a famous unsolved problem is destined to fail. There is an implied consensus that Draft:Proof for NP unequal P by Thomas Käfer should be either deleted or moved to Draft:Archive/2022/Proof for NP unequal P by Thomas Käfer. If anybody wants to delete it from its new location, feel free to continue the discussion here.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In my view, a deletion discussion belongs to RFD, not on a talk page that is at risk of being deleted later per WV:Deletions, "Discussion about deleted resources where context is lost and becoming an independent resource is unlikely".
 * Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/20 shows explicit boldfaced consensus for deletion, and therefore, the page should have been deleted rather than moved, pursuant to that consensus. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying. But by creating the subspace Draft:Archive/2024, and I am allowing it to remain here indefinitely Draft:Archive is my personal project. So while Draft:Foobar belongs to the community, Draft:Archive/Foobar belongs to me unless the community decides otherwise. There are no motions to delete anything in Draft:Archive-space.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 09:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In the linked discussion, I found no notes in support of an outcome other than "Delete". But if the new informal and uncodified quasi-policy is that "Anything that was decided to be deleted can end up in Draft:Archive instead as if it were "Dustbin", then yes. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There was no discussion. I figured that by burying it into a subspace of Draftspace, I was changing things so that permitting it to remain in the new location would not warrant a new discussion that I hoped would never take place. Instead of discussing this with the "inventor" of this new proof and his critics, I decided to just put it there and see who complains.  So far there seems to be no complaints! In the highly unlikely case that 123qweasd has invented something certain to make him rich and famous, he wouldn't want a draft of his work to be known to anyone until it's finished (lest it be stolen.) Meanwhile, we have other fish to fry.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)