Skip to main content

Millennium problems


Updated at:
http://t2dvoice.blogspot.tw/2018/05/heres-what-im-working-on.html

Solutions follow recap of the described logial argument.  Clay Mathematics described millenium problems (only three of the 6 or 7 they had posted) follow this email to their administrator:

Hi Clay,

I'm in a bit of a precarious position.  I have ability to "see" logic.  It's a bit different.  To give you a specific example, logically, a teacher would work for a school.  However, a teacher also has the choice to build a school.  The means to accomplishing one's choice is a matter logic.  This teacher decided to build a school and offered the proposal to a sentience church types would call God.  It isn't so much "God" as it is innately an integral part of each of our daily function.

I'm now in line to accept 700 million Canadian dollars from the Canadian government for crimes against me that occurred AFTER I stated my intent to write a book to market a charity to raise the funds to build a school.  Since Canada and I will likely part ways over the affair, the school will be in its own city-state not differently than Vatican City is in Rome, except I get to choose where and how big.  This is the logical outcome of a story that I knowingly began about 7 years ago. You can see parts of the story at the petition, online, however you'd be looking at subsets of the greater argument and possibly not how it all works together.

Here's the problem.  I had a look at your millennium problems.  Three were of interest to me.  One has a distinct solution, one is technically unsolvable, and the third is so blatantly obvious that I've used the time to share a new problem with you after showing you a proof for it (mass gap).

Whether you accept the writing is up to you.  It doesn't really matter me.  I'll likely become the wealthiest man on the planet in due order, and really am not bothering with arguments about correctness unless the individual is interested in partnerships designed to benefit both mutually in a way not imagined by either.

At the very least, I should hope what I've written can help you understand your own problems (since they aren't mind and I actually do understand them): http://t2dvoice.blogspot.tw/2018/05/millennium-problems.html

I'm sorry if this comes off sounding conceded.  Really, what AM I supposed to do after literally awakening to the knowledge of how everything just works together.  Life is so simple and we make it so bloody confusing for each other.

Rene



If it is easy to check that a solution to a problem is correct, is it also easy to solve the problem? This is the essence of the P vs NP question. Typical of the NP problems is that of the Hamiltonian Path Problem: given N cities to visit, how can one do this without visiting a city twice? If you give me a solution, I can easily check that it is correct. But I cannot so easily find a solution.
This is the equation which governs the flow of fluids such as water and air. However, there is no proof for the most basic questions one can ask: do solutions exist, and are they unique? Why ask for a proof? Because a proof gives not only certitude, but also understanding.
Experiment and computer simulations suggest the existence of a "mass gap" in the solution to the quantum versions of the Yang-Mills equations. But no proof of this property is known.




P vs NP Problem

If it is easy to check that a solution to a problem is correct, is it also easy to solve the problem? This is the essence of the P vs NP question. Typical of the NP problems is that of the Hamiltonian Path Problem: given N cities to visit, how can one do this without visiting a city twice? If you give me a solution, I can easily check that it is correct. But I cannot so easily find a solution.

P vs NP Problem

Suppose that you are organizing housing accommodations for a group of four hundred university students. Space is limited and only one hundred of the students will receive places in the dormitory. To complicate matters, the Dean has provided you with a list of pairs of incompatible students, and requested that no pair from this list appear in your final choice. This is an example of what computer scientists call an NP-problem, since it is easy to check if a given choice of one hundred students proposed by a coworker is satisfactory (i.e., no pair taken from your coworker's list also appears on the list from the Dean's office), however the task of generating such a list from scratch seems to be so hard as to be completely impractical. Indeed, the total number of ways of choosing one hundred students from the four hundred applicants is greater than the number of atoms in the known universe! Thus no future civilization could ever hope to build a supercomputer capable of solving the problem by brute force; that is, by checking every possible combination of 100 students. However, this apparent difficulty may only reflect the lack of ingenuity of your programmer. In fact, one of the outstanding problems in computer science is determining whether questions exist whose answer can be quickly checked, but which require an impossibly long time to solve by any direct procedure. Problems like the one listed above certainly seem to be of this kind, but so far no one has managed to prove that any of them really are so hard as they appear, i.e., that there really is no feasible way to generate an answer with the help of a computer. Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin formulated the P (i.e., easy to find) versus NP (i.e., easy to check) problem independently in 1971.
Image credit: on the left, Stephen Cook by Jiří Janíček (cropped).   CC BY-SA 3.0




P vs NP SOLUTION:
By Rene Helmerichs 15 May 2018 for the book designed to win The Nobel Peace Prize http://talk2dream.com

"If it is easy to check that a solution to a problem is correct, is it also easy to solve the problem? This is the essence of the P vs NP question. Typical of the NP problems is that of the Hamiltonian Path Problem: given N cities to visit, how can one do this without visiting a city twice? If you give me a solution, I can easily check that it is correct. But I cannot so easily find a solution."

The solution rests before thine eye yet ye seeth it not.  The word "I" accompanies present simple form of the verb "to be" not differently than the pronouns "He" or "We", yet, each intended designator of the same simply present state is written differently as "am", "is", and "are".  Is it easy to answer why three different words are used to represent the exact same state of being (the real-time shared reality enabling relations)?  It most certainly is!  But any answer implies that a state of difference within the same ever-present state exists, and therefore negates the very answer it seeks to demonstrate as correct.  In this case, then, the N vs PN question is fundamentally one of intuition versus logical processes while staring at a veil between the two that cannot exist while both speak to and for the same one state originating all concept of, or for, difference.

The answer to the P vs NP question requires a different line of approach.  Rather than ask, "If it is easy to check that a solution to a problem is correct, is it also easy to solve the problem?" think more in terms of what it means to actually solve any problem.  To solve the problem is to absolve its existence from ever having interfered in the natural process of homogeneous functioning for which the problem was created as a condition for its non-functioning that was itself impossible from the real-time perspective of always functioning.  To be always functioning is to function within and throughout and outside of any dimension, simultaneously, so that the solution is ONLY absolutely evident while the problem exists.  The statement is relatively meaningless, but permits the fundamental question to be rephrased as, "If it is easy to know that a problem never existed, was a solution ever necessary?"  The matter is now simply the definition of the construct considered "not", or "never", to ensure correlation of both questions as being, speaking to, the exact same problem.  "Not" must therefore be defined.  "I define 'not' as mutually coincidental of any exclusion."*  Intrinsically, "I" is revealed as the union of singular and plural such that (|) "am" is "is", and "are", and not (or either) "is", or (and) "are", to be correctly the same state as "is" and "are" but needing a different logical linguistic expression for resolve of THAT new problem.

The problem is legitimately solved with this logical solution.  However, the question remains, "If it is NOT easy to check THIS solution, does that mean the problem was not easy to solve?" (That answer is No).

To address the issue of computers generating answers: computers require a binary system while any true answer is of a singular (therefore ever-present, real-time, and unquantifiable) system.  Any other answer is, at best, an approximation which can be wended closer and closer to the indiscriminately not arbitrary corrected value.  Can computers generate a random number?  Once they can do that, they will be able to answer the question of how to solve P vs NP alpha-numerically different than simply setting [1/0=.|.=Time] and outputting ".".

Notes:
*(cited at http://talkhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1jF6FdUwj_4D7h6lv43UR-h9AaKvZEOeX/view -- which, not ironically, is a petition to take $700,000,000 million dollars from the Canadian government, by a teacher to began writing a book to market a charity for the start-up capital to build an international knowledge-sharing hub, a school.)





Navier–Stokes Equation

This is the equation which governs the flow of fluids such as water and air. However, there is no proof for the most basic questions one can ask: do solutions exist, and are they unique? Why ask for a proof? Because a proof gives not only certitude, but also understanding.

Navier–Stokes Equation

Waves follow our boat as we meander across the lake, and turbulent air currents follow our flight in a modern jet. Mathematicians and physicists believe that an explanation for and the prediction of both the breeze and the turbulence can be found through an understanding of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations. Although these equations were written down in the 19th Century, our understanding of them remains minimal. The challenge is to make substantial progress toward a mathematical theory which will unlock the secrets hidden in the Navier-Stokes equations.
Image: Sir George Gabriel Stokes (13 August 1819–1 February 1903). Public Domain




Navier–Stokes Equation SOLUTION
By Rene Helmerichs 15 May 2018 for the book designed to win The Nobel Peace Prize http://talk2dream.com

"This is the equation which governs the flow of fluids such as water and air. However, there is no proof for the most basic questions one can ask: do solutions exist, and are they unique? Why ask for a proof? Because a proof gives not only certitude, but also understanding."

Certitude speaks to truth, which is a noun and therefore not absolutely real, not true.  Each separate argument (problem) has a unique path for its absolve (solution), and, yet, each solution is the same.  How can this be?

Logically: "Mathematicians and physicists believe that an explanation for and the prediction of both the breeze and the turbulence can be found through an understanding of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations."

Logic, however, is a fundamentally two-part system laid upon, or in, a system not able to conceive of itself as anything but one same united whole.  This provides each the commonly logical ability to solve problems for the same common good OR personal benefit in wilful absence of consideration that self IS common to all, as the case may be.

On the one hand, the breeze and turbulence would not exist without the boat to measure them, on the other, the boat measuring the breeze and turbulence does not exist.  The only commonly (absolutely) predictable event is the fact of need for the collapse of the consideration that levels exist where none actually are.  In that way, can a sailor alter the breeze along a desired, not predicted BUT INTENDED, course.  Another observing the sail would be able to say it was predictable only if the first sailing sailor knew himself to be with the thread of true sentience permitting the demonstration of the unreality to the second mind.  The second mind would need to be on the cusp of accepting itself equally joined with all while perceptively as two separate bodies.

We're talking about being able to predict the mind of God, and being able to write it up in an equation for a computer to output on a graph.  First understand how YOU ARE GOD before you can conceive how you ought to be able to move the seas.  Not believing that none can do this is precisely to claim a body joins another in union when the egg of a womb is seeded.  DNA is precisely the expression of the continuation of the argument ultimately revealing why bodies are temporary and minds already eternal, never mind the fact that mind contains memory and memory is the ability to bridge two points in time for absolve of the need OF time (i.e. to use as a "time saving" device for a better future outcome than whatever other yet appearing to be the future, while considering what the exclusive purpose of cooperation is to save IF it isn't time.).  If anyone with memory can alter the future, why should the lesser ability of blowing a bit of wind or moving a puddle the size of the Atlantic not also be possible?  Time IS the greater (more encompassing) order.  To command time would be to have ability to innate program the real-time environment independent of need to formulate subsidiary equations delaying realization of having the ability to live like none ever imagined one could.

Asking for a proof and asking for understanding are different.  A proof is used to establish general credibility while understanding is used to establish personal ability for use OF the generalization.  One can completely understand a problem without ever having needed a proof for its existence specifically because no problem can ever be absolutely real.  In the absolute, the state is homogeneously constant yet dynamically flexible such that any argument presented the point (true) is able to dissolve into the realization that no argument exists when the parties of the argument agree upon a common solution fully satisfying every different requirement (realizing truth). 

Speaking parabolically, a point of light dispels perceptually more darkness than the size of the point originating the light.  And where is the source of understanding light itself to be symbolic of the idea absolving need for the requirement to understand how life in an ever-changing environment carries forward a lasting memory of its own eternal existence, re-termed within the darkness of not understanding as "infinity"?

The action of predicting the breeze (in an "any scale" environment) is logically possible, yes, and to that we agree.  The millennium problem posted seeks the means for a "how", but the request is not in line with the purpose of the construct (time) containing the problem, and so the requested solution would take infinite time to "solve", and thus not be solvable within time.  The only way to "solve" it is to understand that, rather than predict, the need is to understand one has THE ABILITY TO COMMAND (with cooperation), and said is shared with all equally for the exclusive purpose of absolving need to reincarnate to learn how better to work together with the confused (Ego) sentience not recognizing itself as all that is.



Experiment and computer simulations suggest the existence of a "mass gap" in the solution to the quantum versions of the Yang-Mills equations. But no proof of this property is known.

Yang–Mills and Mass Gap

The laws of quantum physics stand to the world of elementary particles in the way that Newton's laws of classical mechanics stand to the macroscopic world. Almost half a century ago, Yang and Mills introduced a remarkable new framework to describe elementary particles using structures that also occur in geometry. Quantum Yang-Mills theory is now the foundation of most of elementary particle theory, and its predictions have been tested at many experimental laboratories, but its mathematical foundation is still unclear. The successful use of Yang-Mills theory to describe the strong interactions of elementary particles depends on a subtle quantum mechanical property called the "mass gap": the quantum particles have positive masses, even though the classical waves travel at the speed of light. This property has been discovered by physicists from experiment and confirmed by computer simulations, but it still has not been understood from a theoretical point of view. Progress in establishing the existence of the Yang-Mills theory and a mass gap will require the introduction of fundamental new ideas both in physics and in mathematics.



Yang–Mills and Mass Gap PROBLEM
By Rene Helmerichs 15 May 2018 for the book designed to win The Nobel Peace Prize http://talk2dream.com

There is distinctly a "mass gap".  The question should not be to prove its existence, but how to successfully navigate its existence.  The proof that there exists such a gap is amazingly simple but will require the reader first to understand time, the concept of it.  Time is a limit upon a state without concept for time.  It is easier to conceive that eternity exists as a real-time singularity ever-present in each "moment" of time, than to understand how time is a limit upon a state that is itself unable to conceive of limits.  The problem becomes a three-part, a trinity.  We exist in such a small space yet we perceive that space as a limitless universe filled with infinite dimensions (and they ARE infinite).  The joke is the concept of order.  We believe in order but it does not follow that THAT which originates the ability to perceive, which must also originate ability to order for in our perception do we organize into orders, requires our belief.  It follows that the originating concept for time does sustain time, and is ubiquitous throughout all time and all other dimensions because it speaks to itself as an indescribably, unlimited, indefinite whole--in psychological terms that's our collective "Ego".  In that way is every order beyond the whole, at its origin, a binary system.  A binary system exists within a united state like a canyon between two masses built of the same stuff, the stuff itself being the canyon that never existed in a state deemed temporary, or relative, to some unknown absolute. 

Because mass is a function, it has parts.  Because it has parts, there exists perceptual inconsistency, a "gap".  Space is a "mass gap".  Computer processes hit the "mass gap" when two separate processes necessitating two different outputs are requested (received as actioned) for the same function at the exact same time.  In the video game world, this results as a mysterious complete wipe of any routinely changeable character features (determined by coders for the linear streams able to be wiped for having being called upon in the operating action) such as armor and equipment.  In twenty years, it has occurred twice at aarchonmud.com .  The "mass gap" is not only real, it is a real problem.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Story Of Loo (荷光者): straight talk about justice in Canada, 2012 Mormon Community Of Christ treasurer Natalie Yewchyn Kelloway and minister Matthew Swain perjury, condoned medical malpractices, and a legal definition for "mind"

http://t2dvoice.blogspot.tw/2018/03/the-story-of-loo-straight-talk-about.html

Excepts
Our Heroine Smurfette Could she be the biblical whore of Babylon?  Could Canada's inconsistent legal babble BE that "babble-on"?


The false minister

"Acronyms, terms, and places"
smurfling: any of a number of people typically in blue uniforms wooed by, or hooking up with, Smurfette.
4 20-20: for SIGHT; see https://www.change.org/p/her-excellence-ms-tsai-please-help-us-correct-injustices-occurring-in-canada/u/22549817
Ziyon: a sustainable, free, global, knowledge-sharing hub for top global scientists independent of their politically tied places for employment.  This is the hub to support the university Talk To Dream intends to build about 200 km west of Edmonton in Alberta, Canada, with public support and notoriety.

"A testament to real life in Canada" ...
Liardog Ali exclaimed, "So, you think you're God!"  The (currently Chief) psychiatrist of RVH insinua…

Let's Stop WW3

http://t2dvoice.blogspot.com/2018/06/news-summary.html
Independence Day update: The Petition For Worldwide Peace!
https://www.change.org/p/her-excellence-ms-tsai-please-help-us-correct-injustices-occurring-in-canada/u/22952131
CC http://talk2dream.NEWS

Previous post follows.

This story starts small but gets bigger.  It relates to everyone, everywhere.

致中華民國總裁蔡英文和行政院:請仔細考慮此事。收盤時有更多中文信息。

Disclaimer (from the dissertation for worldwide peace at http://talk2dream.vegas ): http://t2dvoice.blogspot.com/2018/06/disclaimer.html
Legally speaking, my name is Rene Helmerichs.  I was born in Bremen, Germany, on 2 March 1977.  I am author of Story Of Loo posted at http://talktodream.at .  That story is highly offensive.... Specifically, tithing to any church on earth is directly against the tenets described in Deuteronomy, and THAT is what I'm after. 

Story:

Kidsland Sesame Street Taiwan uses a legal loophole to hire a Canadian criminal offender.  They give him better pay than other teachers and…

Good news II: OPSEU and businesses with The School Of Loo

The Mormon Community Of Christ gave false testimony under oath for C-13-205-SR at Barrie, Canada, in June 2014 to start this story.  Corrupt officers of the Barrie police most recently went looking to arrest Rene in March of 2018.  Since the courthouse at Barrie is crooked, we must make a united public stand for global honesty.  
Rene will continue this campaign in Chinese at http://talk2dream.love until this nonsense is sufficiently brought to public light.  Natalie Yewchyn Kelloway, currently of CBRE.com, and Matthew Swain are the true criminals to be arrested.  Then negotiations can properly begin.  See the full Story Of Loo with details of perjury for any reporter to investigate in the section "A testament to real life in Canada" at
http://t2dvoice.blogspot.tw/2018/03/the-story-of-loo-straight-talk-about.html
(this .doc) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ncPe2U2ZQOb-iyun09yYTnsT8NVXWVu8 (blog) http://t2dvoice.blogspot.tw/2018/03/petition-update-to-businesses-and-anti.ht…