Agreed. Total consciousness, omniscience, or God.
Disagree. Being outside the universe means you have no way to observe the universe. What is observable outside a thing? Only the energy patterns interacting with it. You don't see an apple, you see the light bounced off an apple. If your light, or whatever medium you are using to measure, feel free to use Hawking radiation if you'd like, is "leaving" the universe to travel "outside" of said universe to you, the observer...all you've done is increase the size of that universe (the light traveling out and you as an observer are now the new boundaries of the universe).
You can't escape The Matrix, Neo.
P vs. NP
Easton Russell
Grayson Perez
Intuitionists on suicide watch.
Evan Watson
kek
Xavier Hernandez
The proof for P=NP might however give some clues of where to look. Besides, investing ressources into the search for an algorithm wouldn't be a potential waste anymore.
Luke Watson
It would be far easier to prove P=NP, if that's true, than it is to prove P ≠ NP, if that's true .
The hypothetical proof of P=NP would be constructive. You have a lock, you find a key that opens the lock.
By contrast, a proof of P ≠ NP would not be constructive . You have to prove that the lock is unbreakable.
The fact that we still can't find a P-algorithm for any NP-complete problem after all this time adds to the case that P probably isn't equal to NP. A proof would still be nice tough.
Actually, proving a fast algorithm exists gives you an method to compute it. This isn't set-theory voodoo where you make use of non-constructive axioms. The method itself may be incredibly complex, but it's a matter of time, not existence. The most basic proof a fast algorithm exists is to build it.
Jeremiah Ramirez
not how that works
Nathan Campbell
Bullshit. Complexity proofs don't require constructive logic and work just fine with set theory.