Hi Waterwizardm! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Andrew nyr ( talk, contribs) 06:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to P versus NP problem, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I admire your enthusiasm, but I am afraid that you are missing several fundamentals needed to have a discussion about this topic. Wikipedia:Reference desk (science, mathematics, or computing) may be appropriate for clarifying any points of confusion you have about the fundamentals, but not for proposing a new idea. The sources you tried to link to do not help your case, because they do not make the exact argument you are trying to. You cannot synthesize your own argument from them. There are several concepts you are using incorrectly in your comment:
I'm going to be brutally honest. You come off as pretending to understand computer science. A scientist like you should learn to recognize your own limitations, and in any case, use rigorous arguments. Your only realistic chance to change my mind is to get your reasoning published in a highly reputed peer-reviewed journal in computer science.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I think my use of 'exponential' is very accurate. When I wrote 'exponential', that quantity is exactly exponential to the other quantity I already (implicitly) reffered.
Before answering anything, let me first clarify that, to simplify the point, 'data server' here stands for a randomly-accessible memory. Any randomly accessible memories, including (especially) recursively connected ethernet hubs,are direct counterexamples..
This is a visualization of constructive exponential resource. If you want a counterexample, this is the only hardware construction possible as far as I know.
The hide-and-seek resource is initially exponentially costly for an exhaustive search.
After the first agent has successfully found the secret message(that is, the plain text for the hide-and-seek game), the second agent can verify it almost freely.
[1]
[2]
The access cost with the compressed(that is,the usual) 'URL' is always linear.
It was too trivial for me to think of real examples; the original ideas are very common in physics.
The recursively connected ethernet hub network grows exponentially, which is shaped like a snowflake. Although it's exponential, the access cost is always linear.
Again, 'exponential' here means the literally exponential capacity relative to the URL length.
Similarly, when you want to find alost file, the first agent needs an exponentially large 'ping resource'. But the second agent always verifies it for free [3] because he can reuse the resource of the first agent. [4] This resource-dividing game is always subadditive. [5]
Anti-collision is a strictly quantifiable [6] resource. [7] Secure signatures usually need exponential irreversibility and exponential anti-collision. Popular siganture functions use incomplete anti-collision resources. You can recursively inject linear irreversibility for post-quantm exponentially secure signatures. For example, a recursive irreversible small prime generator (less than 1024bit) is exponentially exhaustive to decrypt for the adversary. Each prime is protected by irreversible collapse of the original information. If you inject similarly irreversibility-protected random input(that is, the random input resource of the encrypted/hashed message blocks), (the linear fingerprint of) the pseudo-random walk with irreversibiliy injection (collapses) is exponentially undecryptable. Asymtotic bit-by-bit linear 'orthogonality' of p-adic prime ensembles asserts average difficulity. [8] The injected random text asserts exponential security.
You are not familiar with some of the basic and established definitions such as 'irreversibility quantification´,which is trivially used by many scientists,and I am not familiar with some of your quotations, the detailed discussions are useless. The paradigms are different.
If your theory can't endure the trivial subadditivity test, please throw it away, the relative gauges are broken. When you prove something from axioms, you must strictly conform them.
I have many sources for this novel subject.
Without doubt, Spekkens is the most important pioneer of the resource theory, which is now commonly used in mathematical physics. [9]
If you want to know what ´logical irreversibility' means here, see this paper. [10] It covers both theoretical and practical discussions.(back -forward speed asymmetry [11] [12] is always atomic-irreversible [13],not atomic-isomorphic,if you understand)
The resource theory is a basic tool to analyse fundamental consistency of mathematics and science. [14] [15] [16] [17]
Wikipedia has articles about some of the basic notions I used. If you are curious about what 'knowledge' means, see
Spekkens toy model. The basic idea is that physical states are just incomplete informations.
My points are very simple.
The resource model lacks strict subadditivity, which implies paradoxes. The resource model lacks the explicit notion of agents, which implies subjective frame inconsistency. You are trying to prove some abstract theory that can't be constructively visualized.
Logical irreversibility [19] and random-accessibility are closely related. They are the two sides of the same coin.
References
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Waterwizardm and NOTHERE". Thank you.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Waterwizardm is a compromised account. His legitimate alternative account is User:aquahabitant. —Preceding undated comment added 04:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Waterwizardm! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Andrew nyr ( talk, contribs) 06:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to P versus NP problem, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I admire your enthusiasm, but I am afraid that you are missing several fundamentals needed to have a discussion about this topic. Wikipedia:Reference desk (science, mathematics, or computing) may be appropriate for clarifying any points of confusion you have about the fundamentals, but not for proposing a new idea. The sources you tried to link to do not help your case, because they do not make the exact argument you are trying to. You cannot synthesize your own argument from them. There are several concepts you are using incorrectly in your comment:
I'm going to be brutally honest. You come off as pretending to understand computer science. A scientist like you should learn to recognize your own limitations, and in any case, use rigorous arguments. Your only realistic chance to change my mind is to get your reasoning published in a highly reputed peer-reviewed journal in computer science.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I think my use of 'exponential' is very accurate. When I wrote 'exponential', that quantity is exactly exponential to the other quantity I already (implicitly) reffered.
Before answering anything, let me first clarify that, to simplify the point, 'data server' here stands for a randomly-accessible memory. Any randomly accessible memories, including (especially) recursively connected ethernet hubs,are direct counterexamples..
This is a visualization of constructive exponential resource. If you want a counterexample, this is the only hardware construction possible as far as I know.
The hide-and-seek resource is initially exponentially costly for an exhaustive search.
After the first agent has successfully found the secret message(that is, the plain text for the hide-and-seek game), the second agent can verify it almost freely.
[1]
[2]
The access cost with the compressed(that is,the usual) 'URL' is always linear.
It was too trivial for me to think of real examples; the original ideas are very common in physics.
The recursively connected ethernet hub network grows exponentially, which is shaped like a snowflake. Although it's exponential, the access cost is always linear.
Again, 'exponential' here means the literally exponential capacity relative to the URL length.
Similarly, when you want to find alost file, the first agent needs an exponentially large 'ping resource'. But the second agent always verifies it for free [3] because he can reuse the resource of the first agent. [4] This resource-dividing game is always subadditive. [5]
Anti-collision is a strictly quantifiable [6] resource. [7] Secure signatures usually need exponential irreversibility and exponential anti-collision. Popular siganture functions use incomplete anti-collision resources. You can recursively inject linear irreversibility for post-quantm exponentially secure signatures. For example, a recursive irreversible small prime generator (less than 1024bit) is exponentially exhaustive to decrypt for the adversary. Each prime is protected by irreversible collapse of the original information. If you inject similarly irreversibility-protected random input(that is, the random input resource of the encrypted/hashed message blocks), (the linear fingerprint of) the pseudo-random walk with irreversibiliy injection (collapses) is exponentially undecryptable. Asymtotic bit-by-bit linear 'orthogonality' of p-adic prime ensembles asserts average difficulity. [8] The injected random text asserts exponential security.
You are not familiar with some of the basic and established definitions such as 'irreversibility quantification´,which is trivially used by many scientists,and I am not familiar with some of your quotations, the detailed discussions are useless. The paradigms are different.
If your theory can't endure the trivial subadditivity test, please throw it away, the relative gauges are broken. When you prove something from axioms, you must strictly conform them.
I have many sources for this novel subject.
Without doubt, Spekkens is the most important pioneer of the resource theory, which is now commonly used in mathematical physics. [9]
If you want to know what ´logical irreversibility' means here, see this paper. [10] It covers both theoretical and practical discussions.(back -forward speed asymmetry [11] [12] is always atomic-irreversible [13],not atomic-isomorphic,if you understand)
The resource theory is a basic tool to analyse fundamental consistency of mathematics and science. [14] [15] [16] [17]
Wikipedia has articles about some of the basic notions I used. If you are curious about what 'knowledge' means, see
Spekkens toy model. The basic idea is that physical states are just incomplete informations.
My points are very simple.
The resource model lacks strict subadditivity, which implies paradoxes. The resource model lacks the explicit notion of agents, which implies subjective frame inconsistency. You are trying to prove some abstract theory that can't be constructively visualized.
Logical irreversibility [19] and random-accessibility are closely related. They are the two sides of the same coin.
References
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Waterwizardm and NOTHERE". Thank you.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Waterwizardm is a compromised account. His legitimate alternative account is User:aquahabitant. —Preceding undated comment added 04:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)