The Proof Is In The Pudding... Or Not

Oh, the infamous "flip the fractions" mathematical sorcery! This meme shows the derivation of kinetic energy (E = ½mv²) through a series of calculus manipulations that would make any physics student break into a cold sweat. The red annotations mockingly point out how mathematicians just casually flip fractions like they're pancakes at IHOP. It's basically math's version of "just trust me bro" - where suddenly dx/dt becomes dt/dx and nobody asks questions. Physics professors will perform this mathematical gymnastics on the board and then look at you like "what, isn't it obvious?" while your brain leaks out your ears.

The ultimate proof that the universe has a sense of humor! Someone actually went through the trouble of converting the first 1000 digits of π into binary and counted the zeros and ones. The result? Almost perfectly balanced at 50.09% zeros and 49.91% ones. It's like π is trolling mathematicians by being almost perfectly random but not quite. Next up: counting how many times "69420" appears in π just because we can.

That transcendent moment when your infinite series calculation starts approaching π or √2 instead of a nice, clean rational number. The cosmic horror! Your perfectly orderly mathematical world crumbles as you realize you're doomed to an eternity of decimal places that never repeat. No matter how many terms you add, you'll never reach exact precision—just an endless asymptotic tease. Mathematicians don't cry, they just stare dramatically into the void while surrounded by sparkly backgrounds.

The fourth forbidden wish that breaks mathematicians' brains! While mere mortals worry about wishing for death or love, math students are over here having existential crises about visualizing higher-dimensional spaces. Our 3D brains simply weren't built to truly comprehend what a 5D hypercube actually looks like, yet we're expected to calculate manifolds in n-dimensions like it's no big deal. It's the mathematical equivalent of asking a fish to explain what it feels like to breathe air. The desperate look on the genie's face says it all—even cosmic wish-granting entities have their limits when it comes to advanced topology!

Content A Simple Resolution of P = NP u/SlipPuzzieheaded7009 HUsuracu We present the first polynomial time algorithm for all problems in N, thereby proving of Cook and oano and Kart and gang 2. our method extends Valiant and gang's algebraic enumeration techniques 3 and 7 (1014 introduction The P vs NP problem- in Cook's 1971 theorem-provino work 1 and Karo's 1972 compilations of IF-complete problems 2 asks whether every problem whose solution can be verified in (n" time can also be solved in O(n) time We prove P = NP by devising a polv time solver that swn thesises circuit constructions a la vallant and gang.3 with certicate guided branching methods (Papadimitriou and gang 4). Our proof is rigorous and breathtakinglv concise mv wite's bovtriend told me so 5) Preliminaries All prior efforts are trivial and naive. Cook-Levin's reduction I is fine: SAI solvers are cute party tricks: POP theorems 6 are delightful and humorous. None saw the obvious that we have. Vain 'Theorem P= NP Proof Left as an exercise for the reader Results and Discussion SAT. CLIOUE. and Hamiltonian Cycle solved in O(n?) time Acknowledgments Tacknowledse. on bebslf of the entire mathematies community. the unparglleled senius of ruself Reterences . A. "The Complexitv of Theorem-Proving Procedures." STOC '71. ACM. 1971 2. Karp. R. M. "Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems." in Complexity of Computer Valiant, L. G. "The Complexity of Enumeration and Reliability Problems." SIAM J. Comput. vol. 8. no. 3, pp. 410-421. 1979. :contentReference oaicite:2 index=2 4. Papadimitrion. C. H.. et al. *On the Complexity of Local Search in Combinatorial Optimize 6. Arora. S.. Safra. S. Probabilistic Checking of Proofs: A New Characterization of NP"

Every mathematician just cringed collectively. This mapping between letters is the kind of chaotic relationship my grad students try to pass off as "valid functions" on their problem sets. The red lines connecting letters from "STRANGER DANGER" to "TRANSGENDER" create a many-to-many relationship that would make set theory professors weep into their coffee. In proper math, each input should map to exactly one output for a function, and for a bijection, it should be one-to-one AND onto. This disaster? It's like watching someone solve equations by throwing darts at a number line. Next time you want to make connections, please consult a discrete mathematics textbook first.