A solution for the P versus NP problem from the reconsideration of the axioms.

Hello, my name is Pol Balart Deschamps, I'm from Spain and I have the fondness to write texts oriented to carry out studies related to semantics and logic. I am pleased to show you a solution for the problem P versus NP from the reconsideration of the axioms. I hope the Google translator did a good job, otherwise I hope that they communicate the errors to be able to correct them.

**Pol Balart Deschamps

¿P = NP ?, here is an unorthodox solution!**

Apparently, it is about clarifying a problem about classification by complexity of the problems.

Such classification distinguishes between two classes, P and NP; being P the kind of problems that are resolvable according to certain parameters that, precisely, have to do with computing, namely, time as the number of steps that are taken at the time of reaching the solution and space as memory needed to solve the problem; in comparison and according to those same parameters with the NP class, which would come to designate those problems whose resolution requires a longer time and space in order to solve them, for example, the use of what are called stages is necessary random by which one approaches the success systematizing the way to err.

For a better understanding of such a problem it is necessary to take into account the NP-complete concept as the NP problem class that in its resolution could be elaborated a method that would be applied to several NP problems, also called reduction.

For a better understanding of how to solve this problem, it must be taken into account that both class P and class NP and NP-complete need to be opposed in such a way that when considering the essence of one, the essence of the other two is considered. It would therefore be logical that finding a solution typical of the class of problems P to a problem of the NP-complete class would dictate that the class NP equals the class P. As if in forging a sword capable of traversing the The strongest of the armors will be ruled that there are no armor that can not be traversed by it, claiming the defensive capacity of all armor to equality with the defensive capacity of those who do not wear armor.

Could it be a determining factor when clarifying the problem of whether P is or is not equal to NP "the blacksmith"?

Obviously, having one of a smith able to make the sword that must go through the strongest of the armor, which in obedience to the problem at hand and therefore in disobedience to the present metaphor, is would award the quality of being the technological peak as far as armors are concerned; the problem would be softened, it would be facilitated in his delegation.

However, such a blacksmith would need, in turn, some training.

Then perhaps the formation is a determining factor when it comes to clarifying the problem of whether P is or is not equal to NP.

Perhaps the key is in, once the NP-complete problem in which it is going to work has been found; to make an algorithm that, in its execution, is reconfigured, making, obviously at the same time, other algorithms; being the end of such process a solution for the NP-complete problem worthy of P.

While it is true that the stipulations of the previous paragraph would continue to be mediated by a certain factor of randomness, this fact can be discussed to the extent that the factors that influenced training were rigorously determined. It is true that when you enter a library or a bookstore you do not have an exact and rigorous idea about which book you are going to choose, as long as you choose to choose one; but at the time of reading it and, therefore, of learning this or that lesson contained in it, you can not simply choose in yourself, as in a bookstore, how to read it.

On the other hand, taking into account that the present problem, whether P is or is not equal to NP; it has its root in computing, having this, in turn, its root in the human being as if it were such an element, the human being, the computer from which every computer is born; it would be a lack of rigor not to consider the human being or, more generally, to the intelligent life or, more generally, to life or, in a definitive way, to the Cosmos; as one more factor to take into account when solving it.

And, when considering Cosmos himself as a determining factor, one must consider his three powers:

  1. Omnipresent, the beginning of time is present in everything to the extent that, indeed dominated, everything comes from that beginning and everything is directed to the end that will cause it.
  2. Omniscient, to the extent that everything that is known is contained in the Cosmos itself, which is, in turn, what is known in order to enable the previous point.
  3. Omnipotent, everything possible is possible thanks to the very Beginning of Time, which, in turn, can only be made possible by the culmination of everything possible. The present point being the scenario in which the two previous points are related.

Is it possible that the proof that P is equal to NP is ourselves? Or everything around us?

Could the Theory of Cosmic Bioreflection be combined with the Seven Capabilities in the finding of an algorithm that demonstrates the P class of all NP problems?

Next I present the two actors of such a combination.

1. The seven abilities

Reactive capacity: reacts to the stimuli in function of a moral forged by the associative capacity.

Stimulating capacity: it emits stimuli based on the reactions to them, and can be classified according to whether they are reward or warning.

Associative capacity: forges the moral through which the reactive capacity operates in "the fire of the stimulus".

Theatrical capacity: recalls past stimuli or imagines future stimuli by order of reactive capacity.

Material capacity: concentrates all the capacities in one so that they can relate to each other.

Repair capacity: gives rest to fatigue, would come to prevent overheating of other capabilities.

Restart capacity: returns to the beginning of life once it is completed by the Cosmic Bioreflection; if the mortal stimulus has been a reward, the reboot will be a reward that can be known as the celestial; if the mortal stimulus has been a lesson, the restart will be a lesson that can be known as the infernal.

2. Theory of Cosmic Bioreflection

Semantic refutation of the atheistic postulate.

From the nonexistence of God it follows that, to the extent that the conception of the Cosmos was fortuitous, absolutely everything is fortuitous. If everything is fortuitous, nothing is so in annihilating such unanimity, the definitive essence of the fortuitous, which is none other than its antagonism to the deliberate, turning everything deliberately fortuitous in the same way that a unanimous beauty would be an ugly beauty. And such a rule could only be confirmed by the exception of a fact that was fortuitously deliberate, in the same way that the exception of an ugliness would confirm the rule that a unanimous beauty is an ugly beauty by becoming a beautiful ugliness in its originality, this is in the fact of being unique and incomparable.

Semantic refutation of the believing postulate.

From the existence of God it follows that, to the extent that the conception of the Cosmos was deliberate, absolutely everything is deliberate. If everything is deliberate nothing is to annihilate such unanimity the ultimate essence of the deliberate, which is none other than its antagonism to the fortuitous, making everything fortuitously deliberate in the same way that a unanimous beauty would be an ugly beauty. And such a rule could only be confirmed by the exception of a fact that was deliberately fortuitous, in the same way that the exception of an ugliness would confirm the rule that a unanimous beauty is an ugly beauty by becoming a beautiful ugliness in its originality, this is in the fact of being unique and incomparable.

Egoistic postulate.

How to confirm ?, then, both rules if it is not in the recognition of the error that is committed with both postulates. The only deliberately fortuitous fact that occurs to me to confirm the rule that everything is fortuitously deliberate is the same one that, being fortuitously deliberate, would confirm the rule that everything is deliberately fortuitous. This fact is based on the cognitively necessary circularity of time that being infinite can not come from nothing, but from itself; this is that it is based on the axiom that if every beginning has its beginning and all its end is its end, every ending is a beginning and everything begins at the end. That fact is neither more nor less than the conception of the Cosmos from its own end. That fact is neither more nor less than the Son, or Cosmos conceived, reaching the destiny that, by cosmic biology, corresponds to him; which is none other than becoming the Father, or Cosmic Conception, in conceiving. In our exceptional fortuitous deliberation, we conceive everything that, being deliberately fortuitous, conceived our exceptional fortuitous deliberation. In our exceptional deliberate fortune we conceived everything that, being fortuitously deliberate, conceived our exceptional deliberate fortune. We are not, then, before a real dilemma, but before the evident equality of two supposed facts, of two unanimities or universes that give place to an exception that, in turn, reflects the relationship between the Created and the Creator; when the sequence of such cosmic biology is noticed in its semantics insofar as, for example, something precious that comes from something disgusting will be disgustingly precious being, of course, its essence totally precious, not its origin, and waiting to be realized by achieving purity in its cleanliness

Conclusion of the egoistic postulate for the believer. God does not exist, it is us.

Conclusion of the egoistic postulate for the atheist. God exists, it is us.

Formulation of the Theory of Cosmic Bioreflection.

Nothing is impossible insofar as it is inconceivable, this is insofar as only something can be conceived. From the impossibility of Nothing, it follows that Time is infinite, that is to say that, further back or later, when we leave Time we will always find something. Then if every beginning has its beginning and all its end is final: every ending is a beginning and everything starts an end, including both the beginning and the end of the own time. It is cognitively necessary that the infinite be circular. E = B

The beginning of the Times gives place to the Cosmos or Universe. B → U

The Cosmos or Universe gives place to Life, which is Will. U → L

Life, which contains Will, gives rise to Evolution. L → Ev

Evolution gives rise to the most powerful survival tool, which is none other than Reason. Ev → R

From the application of Reason to the circuit of the Will, which is conceived considering the involuntariness of it, a cosmic bioreflection device is obtained. While the Will is, solely, that the domino effect that makes up the development of the Universe passes or is given through our nimble cosmic counter and then passes back through it in that first impulse as, for example, the to be hungry, which does not depend on our will, which causes our voluntary intake of food to satiate our appetite; Reason applied to such a circuit increases the proportion of causes of our will that come from our own will on total causes of our will as, for example, that our environment, which is one of the greatest causes of our will, is the product of our own will thanks to Reason, which allows us to build cities, roads, houses ... WR = ((↑ CW) / TCW)

The cusp or collapse of the device of cosmic bioreflection is the very Beginning of the Times insofar as the only possible way that the totality of causes of our will comes from our own will is becoming the cause of the totality of causes of our will. The Beginning of Time proceeds, then, absolutely from itself as well as such a cusp or collapse of the device of cosmic bioreflection. All the End of Times causes the Beginning. (CW / TCW = 1) → (E = B)

Combination of the Seven Capacities with the Theory of Cosmic Bioreflection as a conception of a solution worthy of a problem P for a NP-complete problem.

Once we concentrated the seven capacities previously enumerated in one, that would come to be the factor 7C, to call it somehow; All we have to do is assign it to the W factor, which would become the Will in the Theory of Cosmic Bioreflection, clearly distinguishing it from the R factor that would become the Reason that, in such a theory and in combination with W, ends with solve the NP-complete problem B = E. . It could be said that WR is the algorithm that solves the NP-complete problem of being the cause of itself while being consistent with itself by reacting to the environment that presents itself as a part of such problem to the extent that WR is, in fact, also a part in indissoluble cohesion with everything else, which includes the very environment in which it operates.

We have, then, a computer, which would be the Cosmos Conceived; advancing towards the resolution of a NP-complete problem, which would be the Cosmic Conception; by means of an algorithm characteristic of a problem P, the Seven Capacities or, which is the same, the Will, in combination with the Reason. By means of an algorithm that, in fact, has already proved its effectiveness to the extent that our cosmos had not been conceived if the Cosmic Conception had not already reached what is to be a circularly static conception of spacetime, by means of such an algorithm .

Note by Jason Burn
2 years, 1 month ago

No vote yet
1 vote

  Easy Math Editor

This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.

When posting on Brilliant:

  • Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .
  • Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.
  • Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.
  • Stay on topic — we're all here to learn more about math and science, not to hear about your favorite get-rich-quick scheme or current world events.

MarkdownAppears as
*italics* or _italics_ italics
**bold** or __bold__ bold

- bulleted
- list

  • bulleted
  • list

1. numbered
2. list

  1. numbered
  2. list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
paragraph 1

paragraph 2

paragraph 1

paragraph 2

[example link](https://brilliant.org)example link
> This is a quote
This is a quote
    # I indented these lines
    # 4 spaces, and now they show
    # up as a code block.

    print "hello world"
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.

print "hello world"
MathAppears as
Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.
2 \times 3 2×3 2 \times 3
2^{34} 234 2^{34}
a_{i-1} ai1 a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3} 23 \frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2} 2 \sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3 i=13 \sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta sinθ \sin \theta
\boxed{123} 123 \boxed{123}


Sort by:

Top Newest

How long did all this take you?

Annie Li - 2 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply


Alex Li - 2 years ago

Log in to reply

I am not sure if the translator worked correctly. (Most of the time, if the matter that needs to be discussed is something technical, it does not). For example, what was the reference to the blacksmith about?

P and NP are some sets of strings which satisfy certain properties defined with respect to an abstractly defined machine (the Turing machine). A serious resolution of the P vs NP problem cannot follow from a reinterpretation of the axioms (you cannot change a definition to solve a problem), or theological ideas (because it is not about theological ideas).

Log in to reply


Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...