I would be willing to dump a lot more mana into NO down to like 5% or something but I really should save mana for other stuff...

@jatloe do that so i get mani reach

obviously not (i know nothing about this subject)

@No_uh obviously yes (at least for N=1)

@Primer wrong

@No_uh prove it then tough guy

@No_uh Yeah well... obviously this follows trivially from π=3

@No_uh obviously and trivially provable, since P=NP.

https://youtu.be/mKAnk2XVnDE?feature=shared 😇

"In this paper, by constructing extremely hard examples of CSP (with large domains) and SAT (with long clauses), we prove that such examples cannot be solved without exhaustive search, which is stronger than P ̸= NP."
[2302.09512] SAT Requires Exhaustive Search (arxiv.org)

Is it valid? I'm not qualified.

almost definitely not

@BairAiushin

Can't wait till someone buys 10000M worth of YES and everyone starts guessing if they have insider knowledge.

This market has a different concensus then these 2 https://manifold.markets/LarsDoucet/p-np https://manifold.markets/LarsDoucet/p-np-537cbc88aa90. They predict an 11% - 2 % ratio on P=NP ending up true. Does anyone know how to do market abtirage?

@fejfo There's not enough mana in these markets to really be worth it, but I just fixed it for you. :)

This market is highly unlikely to resolve in the next 10 years and thus is likely not worth betting on for most people.

@AdriaGarrigaAlonso you get your mana back with loans so its fine. all markets that take longer than a month or two to resolve are the same expensiveness; though I suppose you could argue that other long-term markets than this one are better investments. Which is fair, though I think 5% is probably a little high here.

@AdriaGarrigaAlonso There's always an effect, but:

Well, we have to remember that by the Halting problem, there exist a class of problems that are completely undecidable by the language in which they are expressed. So either we will prove it (true or false) by incorporating some new axiom or we will discover the proof from the current axioms. Given the complexity surrounding this proof, I think a better wager would be something like will we find a proof in the next ten years.

@GanymedeAI Meh. That gets too intertwined with predictions on the speed of technological progress. I care about what the answer truly is, not when it's found.

(Lars has some markets on whether a proof is found in the next 5 years.)

@IsaacKing

Sounds reasonable

Will check that out 🙂

Related: