Theory of everything, what? P vs. NP is mathematical problem not necessarily related to reality. Theory of everything is rrlated to reality and is physical problem. "This means that Non-polynomial time problems can’t exist." - say that to chess, Go, halting problem, etc.

How can you say math is not related to reality? Is math not part of reality?

Infinite sets: have you ever observed one in the reality? That's why math is not natural science. Yet, I see severe problems with understanding complexity classes here. Exponential by definition is not polynomial.

Of course I haven't seen infinity. I'm a limited creature. If I was an unlimited creautre I would see unlimited. Since I'm a limited creature I can only see a limited subset of reality. However, that being said, that still doesn't disprove what I've posted. Since I'm a limited creature living in a limited reality, I can only see a limited amount of Math. That means that the only Math I can see is Math problems that exist. Therefore, non-math problems can't exist. Therefore everything that can't exist doesn't exist. Therefore, the concept of non doesn't exist. Which means, Reality is proven.

Nothing can't exist. Therefore, not me can't exist Therefore the whole existence is me. And you too. Do you agree with it?

I do, actually, agree with that. We're everything.

Everything is everything. The proof of everything! Brilliant!

Why close it? Prove why it's nonsense?

Alright here's my single line proof that it's nonsense: "NP" is not "non-polynomial time"; that is one of the biggest mistakes people who have no background in computational complexity make. And I advise you not to try and weasel word your way out with something like "well I do know what it means, I just didn't say it right" because you literally said "Non-polynomial time problems can’t exist". We have actual proofs that there are problems in EXP that are not in P, which means "non polynomial time" problems do exist, so you're just absolutely wrong.

If NP doesn't stand for non-polynomial time problems, what does it stand for?

Nondeterministic polynomial time as any quick Google search will tell you. What you said and what that says are two completely different things, if you can't recognize that you need to go back and actually learn the material.

Here's the thing, while you may be right about that, the greater proof still remains. The concept of non can't exist.

I edited my proof. How about now?

Nope, what you just said is absolute nonsense and the onus has always been on you to prove why it's true, you are just making vague statements in this post and in the comments. If you want people to take you seriously you need to explain exactly what that sentence means and why it should be the case, otherwise this question is going to be closed because it is, genuinely, nonsensical.

I understand so I edited my proof. Please reread it and let me know what you think.

Good eye rus! I updated the proof.

You changed two words in your post, you did not provide an explanation of what any of the vague terms you're using are purported to mean, nor why your argument that clearly uses the conception of negation to prove that negation cannot exist is true. It's a nonsensical argument and I really suggest that you go and review some basic material on the subject and then come back if you have more well thought out questions. Your argument, putting aside all of the other issues, falls apart when you realize that NP doesn't mean "non polynomial"

Look I understand what you're saying so I changed it to non-deterministic polynomial. It was really an argument of semantics. It looks like both everything is true and false here though. Quite a conundrum.

I GET! I GOT IT! Everything is and isn't. However, everything can't be and not be at the same time. Therefore there needs to to exist a reality where everything is and a reality where everything isn't! Therefore there are 2 realities! :D

That is not the moral to be drawn from what's happened, you are misreading rus's comment, they weren't pointing out that there's an actual paradox, they were pointing out that your nonsensical argument is contradicting itself. "Assume that 1=1, now assume 1=2, therefore 1=1 and 1=2. Paradox!" No, that is not a paradox, that is an invalid argument.

Why did he say paradox if that's not what it was? Also that's not a paradox if you're assuming 1 also equals 2.

What do you mean? It's assuming the nonexistence of deterministic polynomial time problems. And doesn't a negative and a negative make a positive? Therefore 2 contradictions negate each other and must make a positive?

@MichaelBarry "Assume everything exists. Therefore, nothing, which is something, exists. Therefore nothing exists. Paradox, both everything and nothing exist." Do you see how what I just said is absolute nonsense, none of the words are defined, and I am randomly stating "therefore, blank is true" and inserting whatever I want into the blank? That is equivalent to what you're doing in this question.