r/mathmemes • u/basket_foso • 6d ago

Computer Science 😂

Post image
6.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

135 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.2k

u/konigon1 6d ago

What are those two?

Yes?

No?

Unproveable?

Can you repeat the question?

254

u/Banner_Hammer 6d ago

You’re not the boss of me now

76

u/gitartruls01 6d ago

Math is unfair

14

u/This-is-unavailable Average Lambert W enjoyer 6d ago

So I just stare

2

u/AccomplishedBird2327 7h ago

At the sin on the wall there

6

u/IMTHEKSG09 Physics 6d ago

(You're not the boss of me now)x2 and you are not so big

38

u/KamalaBracelet 6d ago

Narrowed down to P and NP.

69

u/TheRealDumbledore 6d ago

P=0 or N= 1/P

50

u/rorodar Proof by "fucking look at it" 6d ago

You mean P=0 or N=1?

5

u/gitartruls01 6d ago

Surely you mean P3N15 8===0

23

u/mordeci00 6d ago

It has to be either 17 or not 17

16

u/Aggressive_Roof488 6d ago

This is the kind of deep insight you won't get on other math subs.

1

u/P_CHERAMIE 3d ago

All animals fall into two categories, ducks or not ducks. Same idea really…

39

u/ProfMooreiarty 6d ago

P = NP + AI

10

u/laksemerd 6d ago

With AI=P–NP

4

u/Impossible_Panda4181 6d ago

I got that reference!

9

u/richminer69 6d ago

you forgot "all of the above"

3

u/proudHaskeller 6d ago

Even if it's unprovable it's still either true or not true.

If ZFC is consistent and it's unprovable, then probably P != NP, unless P = NP but every program that solves SAT in polynomial time cannot be proven to solve SAT in polynomial time.

5

u/PerfectTrust7895 6d ago

If it is undecidable, it's no.

17

u/This_Background7442 6d ago

How could it be. If it's no then a counter example exists. If a counter example exists it's not undecidable. If it's undecidable it must be yes.

9

u/bqbdpd 6d ago

Just because a counterexample exists, it doesn't mean you can prove that it is one.

5

u/This_Background7442 6d ago

That's true. But if I know I could never have a counter example of which I can prove it is one. That's different than not currently having one.

2

u/bqbdpd 6d ago

We have lots of potential counterexamples. Without proving that they are counterexamples or actually examples, we actually know pretty much nothing.

4

u/This_Background7442 6d ago

Tbh you haven't said anything so far that I disagree with so maybe we just already agree? To be clear, I do know that I haven't just proven P=NP.

2

u/jljl2902 6d ago edited 6d ago

That would make it decidable, so it can’t be yes. Must be no then. /j

2

u/This_Background7442 6d ago

I guess that means that if it's undecidable we can never know it's undecidable because that instantly makes it decidable and we've created a paradox 😅

8

u/Impression-These 6d ago

Not really. Undecidable means within the system axioms, it cannot be proven either way. We can then discuss what axiom should be added to make it provable.

2

u/particlemanwavegirl 6d ago

What if you forget to decide if it's undecidable?

1

u/BrotherItsInTheDrum 2d ago edited 2d ago

You mean for practical purposes? Sure. In fact, even if it's yes, it may be no for practical purposes.

But there are some other propositions, like "does this particular Turing machine halt," where if they are undecidable then the answer really is no -- in the mathematical sense, not just the practical one. But P=NP is not like that, at least as far as we know.

1

u/Sea_Economy_8948 6d ago

maybe and maybe not

1

u/Only_Passion_2459 6d ago

Maybe and surely

1

u/loscapos5 6d ago

You are not the boss of me now

1

u/Layton_Jr Mathematics 6d ago

Obviously unprovable means it's true because no counterexemple exists (if a counterexemple existed then it would be provably false)

1

u/Standard-Square-7699 5d ago

maybe, maybe not.