On May 11, 7:32 am, Chip Eastham <hardm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 5:14 am, Martin Musatov <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 10, 6:09 pm, Martin Musatov <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > victor_meldrew_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > > > > On 9 May, 19:50, Martin Musatov <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Also here are some additional related results: 1) Access to > > > > > Photograph:http://documents.cern.ch/cgi-bin/setlink?base=PHO&categ=photo-tsic&id... > > > > > 2)Conversions Information: Portable Document Format:http:// > > > > > documents.cern.ch/archive/electronic/hep-lat/9612/9612008.pdf > > > > > Wgat have these to do with your drivel? > > > > > > > Does that mean "bogus"?. > > > > > > No, you are welcome to try to disprove it. > > > > > There is nothing there to disprove; it's "not even wrong". I agree with the proof. I cannot deny it by the evidence shown it solves several NP-complete problems referenced here: > > > Does not even wrong mean right? If not what does it mean? If something > > is not wrong the assumption is someone is dancing around admitting it > > is right.--Martin Musatov > > Hi, Martin: > > No, it means that you have posted > rambling, incoherent nonsense. It > is not "even wrong" because only > statements fall under the logical > dichotomy of being true or false, > and you write with no reasoned > connection with the P vs. NP > problem. > > Hence your "proof" is not even > wrong. You might as well have > copied a poem about birds or > the ingredients of a cake. > > regards, chip How exactly is it rambling incoherent nonsense other than your labeling it as such? --Martin Musatov
