Date: Feb 17, 2013 9:38 PM
Author: 
Subject: Re: 0K

On Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:34:22 PM UTC-8, Martin Musatov wrote:
> Statement: if NP-COMPLETE and NP-HARD problems were put up against P-COMPLETE and P-HARD problems it seems clear the NP-PROBLEMS are the most difficult due to the added N-VARIABLE. But if another way to say this problem is like if little 5 and big 5 got in a fight little 10 and big 10 it seems apparent 10 wins unless we are Roman and 10=X to reduce the added variable substitution. This whole problem and computational complexity seems like this to me:
>
>
>
> 5 is a problem
>
> 10 is a P problem
>
> 100 is a NP problem
>
> 1000 is an NP-HARD problem, only if
>
> 500 is an NP-EASY problem, or if NP-PROBLEMS are in the set of complete problems.
>
>
>
> In other words everything is easy and complete and very complicated sometimes despite all the smart people who insist complexity ovverrules simplicity.
>
>
>
> Many of these smart people are teachers. Some of them are me-.alltheotherpeople
>
>
>
> I just wish people -me would +start listening to me so I could help them sort through all their quantum puzzles and science fiction.
>
>
>
> Here is a joke and an indicator the more you hear of the people saying um... the greater the quantity -.t0, +.T1, -.t1, +.T2, etc. would be one way to say it... typing this is the point the person reads who I am and others are they are starting to get weary and their brain mostly shuts down because they fail to identify themselves with other individuals both separately and together within the set of all individuals.
>
>
>
>
>
> In you or rather in i (for Integer) or I to be proper we might say I am me separate and different from all the 2I yet the 3I is forever incomplete without me. With me the 3I is finally NP-Complete.
>
>
>
> There are many, many ways to say this some more bold and less tolerable than others, maybe even more bold ways more tolerable than mine (would be neat to find these). You know even as the matter has settled itself throughout the ages in our old books I believe there is something to the one thing he said about the wisdom of a child or the value of the wisdom of a man recognizing the wisdom of the child within himself while disregarding all his childish ways insomuch as childish carries with it a negative or NOT-based (-t) or (-T) based connotation also called negation. I think though we are within a pretty well-defined spring of learning, again like they wrote in the old books, maybe to there is a wisdom.
>
>
>
> God bless you all if you believe in a God and God bless you all if you refuse to believe in a God. It is all the same with a child of God as one who believe the refuse is =/=trash. With all my love, M. M. Musatov


and just to forgive myself the error 2v looks like a w and if w then no m is a binary switch like io:IO 10:often.