In the current paper, I present probably the simplest possible abstract formal proof that P ≠ NP, and NP = EXPTIME, in the context of the standard mathematical set theory of computational complexity and deterministic...In the current paper, I present probably the simplest possible abstract formal proof that P ≠ NP, and NP = EXPTIME, in the context of the standard mathematical set theory of computational complexity and deterministic Turing machines. My previous publications about the solution of the P vs. NP with the same result NP = EXPTIME, to be fully correct and understandable need the Lemma 4.1 and its proof of the current paper. The arguments of the current paper in order to prove NP = EXPTME are even simpler than in my previous publications. The strategy to solve the P vs. NP problem in the current paper (and in my previous publications) is by starting with an EXPTIME-complete language (problem) and proving that it has a re-formulation as an NP-class language, thus NP = EXPTIME. The main reason that the scientific community has missed so far such a simple proof, is because of two factors 1) It has been tried extensively but in vain to simplify the solutions of NP-complete problems from exponential time algorithms to polynomial time algorithms (which would be a good strategy only if P = NP) 2) It is believed that the complexity class NP is strictly a subclass to the complexity class EXPTIME (in spite the fact that any known solution to any of the NP-complete problems is not less than exponential). The simplicity of the current solution would have been missed if 2) was to be believed true. So far the majority of the relevant scientific community has considered this famous problem not yet solved. The present results definitely solve the 3rd Clay Millennium Problem about P versus NP in a simple, abstract and transparent way that the general scientific community, but also the experts of the area, can follow, understand and therefore become able to accept.展开更多
This paper presents a very short solution to the 4th Millennium problem about the Navier-Stokes equations. The solution proves that there cannot be a blow up in finite or infinite time, and the local in time smooth so...This paper presents a very short solution to the 4th Millennium problem about the Navier-Stokes equations. The solution proves that there cannot be a blow up in finite or infinite time, and the local in time smooth solutions can be extended for all times, thus regularity. This happily is proved not only for the Navier-Stokes equations but also for the inviscid case of the Euler equations both for the periodic or non-periodic formulation and without external forcing (homogeneous case). The proof is based on an appropriate modified extension in the viscous case of the well-known Helmholtz-Kelvin-Stokes theorem of invariance of the circulation of velocity in the Euler inviscid flows. This is essentially a 1D line density of (rotatory) momentum conservation. We discover a similar 2D surface density of (rotatory) momentum conservation. These conservations are indispensable, besides to the ordinary momentum conservation, to prove that there cannot be a blow-up in finite time, of the point vorticities, thus regularity.展开更多
文摘In the current paper, I present probably the simplest possible abstract formal proof that P ≠ NP, and NP = EXPTIME, in the context of the standard mathematical set theory of computational complexity and deterministic Turing machines. My previous publications about the solution of the P vs. NP with the same result NP = EXPTIME, to be fully correct and understandable need the Lemma 4.1 and its proof of the current paper. The arguments of the current paper in order to prove NP = EXPTME are even simpler than in my previous publications. The strategy to solve the P vs. NP problem in the current paper (and in my previous publications) is by starting with an EXPTIME-complete language (problem) and proving that it has a re-formulation as an NP-class language, thus NP = EXPTIME. The main reason that the scientific community has missed so far such a simple proof, is because of two factors 1) It has been tried extensively but in vain to simplify the solutions of NP-complete problems from exponential time algorithms to polynomial time algorithms (which would be a good strategy only if P = NP) 2) It is believed that the complexity class NP is strictly a subclass to the complexity class EXPTIME (in spite the fact that any known solution to any of the NP-complete problems is not less than exponential). The simplicity of the current solution would have been missed if 2) was to be believed true. So far the majority of the relevant scientific community has considered this famous problem not yet solved. The present results definitely solve the 3rd Clay Millennium Problem about P versus NP in a simple, abstract and transparent way that the general scientific community, but also the experts of the area, can follow, understand and therefore become able to accept.
文摘This paper presents a very short solution to the 4th Millennium problem about the Navier-Stokes equations. The solution proves that there cannot be a blow up in finite or infinite time, and the local in time smooth solutions can be extended for all times, thus regularity. This happily is proved not only for the Navier-Stokes equations but also for the inviscid case of the Euler equations both for the periodic or non-periodic formulation and without external forcing (homogeneous case). The proof is based on an appropriate modified extension in the viscous case of the well-known Helmholtz-Kelvin-Stokes theorem of invariance of the circulation of velocity in the Euler inviscid flows. This is essentially a 1D line density of (rotatory) momentum conservation. We discover a similar 2D surface density of (rotatory) momentum conservation. These conservations are indispensable, besides to the ordinary momentum conservation, to prove that there cannot be a blow-up in finite time, of the point vorticities, thus regularity.
