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
20180515 from http://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems
:
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.
20180515 from http://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems/p-vs-np-problem
:
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
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
Post a Comment
A show word verification should have come up after the comment is published?