# Re: An easy way to prove P != NP

*From*: "Mitch" <maharri@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: 6 Nov 2006 07:58:11 -0800

Proginoskes wrote:

There can't be a trivial argument, one way or another. Someone else

would have found it thirty years ago, and we wouldn't be having this

discussion.

In defence of science, this is really only a heuristic. A very strong

heuristic, but still just a heuristic.

Mitch

.

**References**:**An easy way to prove P != NP***From:*Craig Feinstein

**Re: An easy way to prove P != NP***From:*eKo1

**Re: An easy way to prove P != NP***From:*Craig Feinstein

**Re: An easy way to prove P != NP***From:*A . L .

**Re: An easy way to prove P != NP***From:*Radoslaw Hofman

**Re: An easy way to prove P != NP***From:*mathisart

**Re: An easy way to prove P != NP***From:*Craig Feinstein

**Re: An easy way to prove P != NP***From:*Proginoskes

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Discussion regarding Mr. Diabys algorithm** - Next by Date:
**Re: Discussion regarding Mr. Diabys algorithm** - Previous by thread:
**Re: An easy way to prove P != NP** - Next by thread:
**Re: An easy way to prove P != NP** - Index(es):