 News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register |
Log in |
|
|
you even say zetsu is unknown yet you put him above kisame??? one of the few akatsuki to come in contact with naruto and not die???
how dare you sir Chili De Morte
Start with a can of commercial chili and use the cheapest one you can find. The thicker the orange shell of sheer grease on top when you open it, the better. The very idea that you would use real stew meat instead of cheap ground beast that's more pink than red and then add onions, tomatoes etc. in their fresh states is laughable. Pour in a fistful of salsa and maybe leftover spaghetti sauce. Squirt several packets of Taco Bell sauce into it. Then crumble into it a whole package of Ritz Crackers or half a bag of half-stale Doritos and a bit of tabasco, if you are either feeling adventurous or are too stoned or zoned out to consider the possible aftermath. Squirt half a can of gooey cheese surrogate over it. Nuke some broccoli in a valiant but vain attempt to get some tangible nutrition into the glop. Add several jalapeno peppers to give it some zing. Scarf down enough of it to serve 4 or 5 normal people and spend the next morning with your ass under a cold tap running at full blast (because you are too stupid to remember the last time you did this), as fire shoots from your rectum like Gamera in full flight. Go to the store later and buy 5 more cans of chili. Repeat. To prove that 0 < 1, we first need to prove the following two lemmas.
Lemma 1. The set of positive real numbers, {x in R : x > 0}, is closed under addition and multiplication. Proof. For a = 0 and positive real numbers b and c, we have a < b, which follows from the definition of a positive real number. By Axiom 7, we then have a + c < b + c, and since a = 0 then by Axiom 4 we have c < b + c. Since 0 < c by definition, we also have 0 < b + c by Axiom 9. Thus the positive real numbers are closed under addition. Likewise for a = 0 and positive real numbers b, c, we have a < b. From Axioms 4 and 8, we have 0 = ac < bc, so the positive real numbers are closed under multiplication. Lemma 2. For any real number a, we have aa = -a(-a). Proof. This follows from Axioms 3 and 5, since we have a + (-a) = 0 a(a + (-a)) = 0 aa = -a(-a). Theorem. For the real numbers 0 and 1, we have 0 < 1. Proof. From the field axioms, we know that 0 != 1, and by Trichotomy of the Real Numbers this means either 0 < 1 or 1 < 0. By way of contradiction, assume 1 < 0. By adding the additive inverse of 1 to both sides, we get 0 < -1, i.e. -1 is a positive real number. Thus from using Lemma 1 above, multiplying both sides by -1, and by Axiom 8 we get 0 < (-1)(-1). By applying Lemma 2, this becomes 0 < 1. This is a contradiction to the assumption that 1 < 0, and thus it must be that 0 < 1, which is what we wanted to prove. What we would gain from P = NP will make the whole Internet look like a footnote in history.
Since all the NP-complete optimization problems become easy, everything will be much more efficient. Transportation of all forms will be scheduled optimally to move people and goods around quicker and cheaper. Manufacturers can improve their production to increase speed and create less waste. And I'm just scratching the surface. Learning becomes easy by using the principle of Occam's razor�we simply find the smallest program consistent with the data. Near perfect vision recognition, language comprehension and translation and all other learning tasks become trivial. We will also have much better predictions of weather and earthquakes and other natural phenomenon. P = NP would also have big implications in mathematics. One could find short, fully logical proofs for theorems but these proofs are usually extremely long. But we can use the Occam razor principle to recognize and verify mathematical proofs as typically written in journals. We can then find proofs of theorems that have reasonable length proofs say in under 100 pages. A person who proves P = NP would walk home from the Clay Institute not with $1 million check but with seven (actually six since the Poincar� Conjecture appears solved). Why would you want to watch a video of an animal processing tool which nonentity posted and even Zwiffle is wary?
|
|
| You must be logged in to post in this thread. |
|
| Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors. |