Topic: nevermind (Read 2016 times)
Are you asking us to find obvious flaws in your propsed proof?
There is a $1 million prize for the first correct solution.
I would have to read up on graph theory to see if your claim of being able to represent the the entire set of NP problems on a graph is valid.
You appear to be using "clique finder" edges to model CPU time. Are you also modeling storage requirements which grow just as fast? For example, for finding prime a number by trial factoring, I only need to divide the candidate by all the prime numbers up to the square-root of that number. However, once the number is over 64bits long, the storage requirements (all 32 bit primes) start to become prohibitive.
Edit: You may also want to examine what Class or proof you are using. Your proof appears to be a "Natural proof" which according to Wikipedia requires the concept of one-way functions to be disproven to prove P=NP.
There is a $1 million prize for the first correct solution.
I would have to read up on graph theory to see if your claim of being able to represent the the entire set of NP problems on a graph is valid.
You appear to be using "clique finder" edges to model CPU time. Are you also modeling storage requirements which grow just as fast? For example, for finding prime a number by trial factoring, I only need to divide the candidate by all the prime numbers up to the square-root of that number. However, once the number is over 64bits long, the storage requirements (all 32 bit primes) start to become prohibitive.
Edit: You may also want to examine what Class or proof you are using. Your proof appears to be a "Natural proof" which according to Wikipedia requires the concept of one-way functions to be disproven to prove P=NP.
I'm so happy to hear about this conclusion. It seems that I don't need to do my PhD thesis from now on.
nevermind
Jump to: