Existence and outline are equivalent, outline and wave (inclusion relation ⊇) are equivalent, and the inclusion relation and causal relation (logic →) are equivalent. Therefore, taking the physical space of this visible reality = existence as the foremost premise, everything that follows is represented. In other words, it may be said that the essence of this world is the visible space. Therefore, if the proof of every true proposition exists, it contradicts not existing in visible space. Thus, the theorem is demonstrated.
Corollary: For every true proof problem, as time is infinitely increased (with ∞^n, where n can be made as large as possible), the ratio of solved problems converges to 1.
Now, if we assume that the proposition does not hold, then for every problem, there exists a problem a whose algorithm does not match the class of the problem, and is of a smaller class.
At this time, it is possible to create a program A that generates problem a infinitely.
Let there be a program X that creates problems infinitely, and let r(X) be the ratio of the total problems solved by it.
In the case of A, even if we take n as large as possible with time being ∞^n, r(A) converges to 0.
301 ::2024/03/10(日) 01:25:38.05 ID:86TMEkfZ.net
>>300 Let P be the set of all true proof problems, and let p be the set of all computational problems, then P ⊃ p.
To solve a computational problem means to demonstrate the following two points: (1) Decide whether there is a better algorithm than brute force search, and if it exists, demonstrate that it is the best; if not, demonstrate its non-existence. (2) If it exists, verify whether a solution exists using that algorithm and specifically output the value. If it does not exist, verify the existence of a solution through brute force search.
Let E be the set of numerous problems created by A. Since the corollary indicates that r converges to 1, both (1) and (2) are demonstrated for E and converge to 1 ⇔ for each problem, as all algorithms are the same, the best algorithm for a computational problem must match its class. However, as demonstrated earlier, r(A) converges to 0, which is a contradiction. Thus, the proposition is demonstrated.
Corollary: P=NP holds.
302 ::2024/03/10(日) 01:39:39.19 ID:86TMEkfZ.net
某有名数学者にメールを送りました
303 ::2024/03/10(日) 02:46:01.53 ID:86TMEkfZ.net
この内容の論文をviXraに投稿しました。次に有名数学者に送ってタイムスタンプを付けます。
Fermat’s conjecture is true
Sakura Tachibana
Abstract I prove that lines do not exist and addition does not hold. Thus Fermat’s conjecture is true.
Theorem 1: Lines do not exist. Proof: Consider the operation of creating numbers from {0,1} and the operations {+,-,*,/}. In this case, the sign of 1/0 is ±, and + and - intersect. The condition that curvature 0 exists ⟺ lines exist is contradictory because + and - intersect, so the condition cannot be added. Therefore, lines do not exist.
Theorem 2: All spatial structures that include lines do not exist. Proof: Self-evident
Theorem 3: Addition does not hold. Proof: Consider a vector space V constructed from {a}. In this case, -a∈V, but a, 0, and -a line up on a line, which contradicts Theorem 1. Therefore, the theorem is proven.
Corollary 3.1: 0 does not exist.
Corollary 3.2: All propositions and proofs that assume addition and lines are false.
Corollary 3.3: Fermat’s conjecture is true. Proof: Because addition does not hold, so we can not define addition.
Abstract I prove that lines do not exist and addition does not hold. Thus Riemann hypothesis is false.
Theorem 1: Lines do not exist. Proof: Consider the operation of creating numbers from {0,1} and the operations {+,-,*,/}. In this case, the sign of 1/0 is ±, and + and - intersect. The condition that curvature 0 exists ⟺ lines exist is contradictory because + and - intersect, so the condition cannot be added. Therefore, lines do not exist.
Theorem 2: All spatial structures that include lines do not exist. Proof: Self-evident
Theorem 3: Addition does not hold. Proof: Consider a vector space V constructed from {a}. In this case, -a∈V, but a, 0, and -a line up on a line, which contradicts Theorem 1. Therefore, the theorem is proven.
Corollary 3.1: 0 does not exist.
Corollary 3.2: All propositions and proofs that assume addition and lines are false.
Corollary 3.3: Riemann hypothesis is false. Proof: Because lines do not exist, so Riemann hypothesis is false.