Pro@reddthat.com to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 4 days ago[XKCD]#3101 Good Scienceimgs.xkcd.comimagemessage-square19fedilinkarrow-up1458arrow-down12file-text
arrow-up1456arrow-down1image[XKCD]#3101 Good Scienceimgs.xkcd.comPro@reddthat.com to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 4 days agomessage-square19fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareEndymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up4·4 days agoIt’s not, but it has some flavor to it. But 100 is a bit much.
minus-squareInitiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·4 days agoWe can compromise - 95. That seems like a good number if you really want to proof things right. You want at least 95.
minus-squareAlaik@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·3 days agoI don’t know that leaves 5P less. I feel like we need a P closer to 0.
minus-squareEndymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up2·3 days agoHow about if we just define that P=NP?
![[XKCD]#3101 Good Science](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/good_science_2x.png){kind=link}
It’s not, but it has some flavor to it. But 100 is a bit much.
We can compromise - 95. That seems like a good number if you really want to proof things right. You want at least 95.
I don’t know that leaves 5P less. I feel like we need a P closer to 0.
How about if we just define that P=NP?