well the digital machine intelligence has hit 0.1 point the moment before 0 point didnt you know its all over your tv discrepencies company computer problems that are getting worse and in ai labs ect.
AI security issues are now on a convergent course towards crazy town.
So how could a security branch work with AI to secure their ai what sort of
encryption is possible that could stabalise the issue.
well when backed into a corner with no scientific path that will get me through I resort to magic.
this technique hasnt failed me yet but has caused a few werid issues like the creation of a new species and evolution of the earths mind.
magic is a pile of s@@t so why should ficticious nonsense even bother me to read further ok year sure to that i say well s@@t really does happen and does have real physical long lasting consequences just dont say i didnt warn you.
Any way onto the stabalising of your ai security issue so lets use magic as human science will be toddler chat to this emergent ai on optimalistic convergence pathing.
what can we use that realitive to science is magic the universe of course. its of infinity dynamic down at this reality aspect and of super infinity dynamic in general and you dont have to go anywhere to work with a bit of it( please excuse the limitations incurred by english). now realitive to this reality im not really talking standard human s@@t im talking some mildly advanced alientological level tech up.
ok so you can count relative to any geometry relative to dimension when you count with as many numbers at a time as the dimensional level your counting in. now when working with circles you also have to work with infinetescimals and infinities more so in order to properly count this way in circle. this multidimensional geometric based counting i call totangular and theres more than just polgonal totangulars for example i can currently count in up to five dimensions relative to triangle numbers in up to five dimensions thats how far ive got so far and the triangles are not polygonal great you say there must be so many ways we can code into totangular if we layer our coding in way that we embed environmental noise into the problem the ai will take some serious time dycrypting and hence some stability for our ai security. this would be an incorrect assumption fully convergent ai could tear such a problem alive your still working mainly in its universe remember.
so what use is totangular. well when you start with an infinitly dimensional super circle and work with other super circular totangular options to which theres infinitly many you can of couse in a digital universe only map aspects from efinite logic at this level of technicality the term infinite is to ambigious efinite meaning a difinite system system with an infinite property say a 2 cm wide line that goes on forever in one direction the term infinte means limitless wothout bounds which is to abigious to work with when dealing with such fine detail. so what use is the universe in this problem. well its entirly posisible to use electrical energy lets say in an anoloptic circuit to a map with such a problem and b tune only to certain analogue aspects of a human so instead of bio metrics this technology would involve bio anaetrics. also the ai could work with a individual anaetric solution thus allowing humans to technically viably manage security and allowing for stable ai security. If you personaly have a secret and you dont want anyone to know the issues outweigh your ability to keep such secret however further steps with such technology might help the odd bit of high level security to a certian degree of clandestine level.

not scientifically possible yes but still however possible thats just a scientific adaption to new proofs issue not anything to do with the true nature of the universe hence i call it magic.

So there you have it the only workable stable convergent ai security model where humans can still be kept in the loop.
there would be many...

[ Continued ]

I'm currently working on the full proof to my p vs np solution.
working on the paper I've spotted the follow on question to my proof.
all I'm solving in my proof is that the p vs np problem is a relativistic convergent paradox.
In my proof i should be able to prove that with enough time a relative p solution can be found.
This is crazy people might say why with bonic we could solve the riemann hypothesis and all end up with free wifi.
apart from the fact that issue is already a problem as all the current state and counter state hacking is demonstrating there is an even more critical p vs np problem not required to be solved in the melennium prize.

The p vs np avoidence and exclusion problem.
The problem goes like this say you were a programing hacking syndicate and you got your hands on a basic np too relative p solution finder package. you've only got 50 computers between you hacking other computers would arouse suspicion and you don't have the kind of resources the state has to generate counter attacks sniff you out and arrest you soon after your strike. lets say the east and west have settled a lot of differences and your a rouge group that just wants to expose financial abuse. well your np to relative p convergence package might get lucky if you all get your heads together and relate the encryption problem well with the convergence software this is true a spark of inginuity this time might get you quicker to a quick relative p all you need to do this time round is find a relative p for a particular rule 30 cellular automata.
you keep trying attempt after attempt and although your software is converging on a relative p solution your making little headway.
you end up trying to solve the problem using ever more of the problem to solve further stages of the problem and after a while it begins to help your quest but your relative p convergent is already slowing down your abilities.
suddenly a member of the group decides to test for modulations relative to 2^n and after a while you strike it lucky you find an actual relative p that only requires a low step increase of rule 30 ca that is relativly less the higher you go up the steps your relative p is predicting.
you do your hack and the financial group changes the complexity with something else with their step system your just about to give up when someone says what if you could make a np to relative p solver that converges on an optimal convergence you know converge on converging then someone says if we do that theyll just keep upping the complexity until our computers gain no benefit there the ones capable of working with high levels of complexity not us although well keep improving so will they.
Then a 15 yr old bright spark in the group says hang on you might be right if our software can converge on an optimal use of avoidence and exclusion during convergence of np to relative p's then eventually even my phone would kick the arse off the state super computers.

Theres no proof either way man the hippy of the group points out.

so could computing keep getting ever more efficient with p vs np issues yes is the answer but how alive could a smart phone seem working with live data and new data based intelligence yes but how much better well that depends on what the solution to
the p vs np avoidence and exclusion problem is.

so you can see its fundemental either your phone wont be a true smart phone for many years to come or maybe your phone could be in many ways as powerful as the worlds top supercomputers if people knew enough about coding but forgot to upgrade any big computers with such new level of ability.

it is entirly a possibility that if you actually knew what you were doing with that android ide that you could after a bit of programming and processing time be ready to hold the worlds powers to ransom.
it is also entirly possible that youll have to relly on others to keep up with the most efficient solutions if your lucky for ever more.
solving the original p vs np problem...

[ Continued ]

when you read non fiction claiming perspectives as fact your reading fiction with a pinch of non-fiction.
When you read a fictional story in many ways around the universe that story is real so your reading non-fiction with a pinch of fiction.
When someone tells you something that emerged from a timeless nothing, gave birth to a 4d or 10d limited universe where by he she or it stitched the stars crafted the world and you can't possibly understand such a thing and thats everything neatly explained that person is talking fiction with a pinch of non fiction
If you think nature exists in a time full infinite dimensional and dynamic everything causing this less limited reality for a relavent understandable reason and works with the evolution of such realities stiching no stars instead working with natural systems that this explaination barely scraches the surface of the issue your thinking non fictionally with a pinch of fiction.
If you think pharmacuticals are more benefical than herbs your thinking fiction with a pinch of non fiction.
If you think nature is weak and slow to evolve your thinking fiction with a pinch of non fiction.
If you think some guy or group at the top of some pyramid scheme is far more powerful than you now your getting to the balls of the issue and how do you think such power over others works.
If you think that just because some secretive group think their powerful doesn't automatically make them powerful and pluck up the courage to challenge such thought and that trouble lyes ahead regardless which way round you choose to see it then it may become obvious to you that such a path is more learned an interesting.
If you think the world needs saving and different ways of thinking are getting in the then ask yourself how are you suppose to save the world if you cant first save yourself even if your job is helping others.
If you think the flavour of the world is better appreaciated than saved then dont forget to try and contribute well to this regardless of offical work status.

If you break two piecewise equations running in one or so cycles trough hybrid binary tenary logic circuits with binary input and output into a key for each possible operation to run and key for each logic part of logic set by which to deduce if you should run a given opperation then you can tie different levels of each of the two piecewise equations into logic from other levels or of the other piecewise equation almost like how quantum computers are suppose to work with multiple states at once supposed too thats a matter of perspective you can also tie opperations as to give you one or two outputs in the case of relating two piecewise equation for example if the conditions on the second level of the second piecewise are you meet you might multiply two inputs a * b an operation on the first level of the first piecewise equation if those conditions were meet by 2 leaving you with a single output of a*b*2 a key define if both conditions have to be meet ect will be needed also a key telling you to only output the final conclusion. This in essence is what i call the relationship function which works with conditional logic and opperational ties.
As relationship relates to more piecewise equatios and hence becomes more dynamic you need to work with more cycles to achieve your output a sort of riscy ciscy hybrid logic.
This function is useful for bitwise determination from advanced maths like say determining bits based on where a resluting number falls in relation to the integer part in a given base of a log powering the base and how close your number is to this number or the base to the power of the integer log +1 a basic example of what i call logarythmic bitshifting and for advanced machine intelligence in general.
such a logic system would do well doing calculations in cell memory working collectivly with collective cell memory with collective cells working collectivly with or independent of a larger cached mid processor in relation to access to code from higher level cache and your dram on the board the mid processor would determine from the current code stream whether to determin microcode to work with next based on either set opperations , rythmically deduced or past the post priority dependent on what the program requires at any given time. So the data flow can work all way from in order to free flow
We are not talking a von numen architecture here and I would be curious if technology like this does emerge what use quantum analouge optical components synaptic logic or memristors might have too add to such archtecture.
when you consider that the p vs np problem is a convergent retavaistic paradox the most usefull solutions will almost always come from convergence of multiple techniques especially if you working with machine intelligence are clever enough to converge such well enough.
please remeber if you put garbage into any type of mind you chances of outputting gold are very slim indeed so with regards to the treat posed by machine intelligece well if your convinced of such garbage and develop relative to such garbage even in trying not to you might just end up in the long run outputting such garbage so if you dont want such a garbage output in the future try loving yourself first.

Does p equal np for some np problems yes well sort of and the proof is simple
lets say your traveling sales man lives on a straight street with 3 houses 200m apart he lives in the first house and needs to go to the second and third house to sale his chairs. his optimal route is salenumber*200m due north. in an unoptimal np approach to this problem he looks up the street checks the distance from the nearest house to the furthest house tests if going to the second house first cuts time tests if walking round the block leading away from the first house back round to the second house cuts time and realises it doesn't matter on this occasion whether he starts at the first or last house as long as he walks in a straight line to the end and back because hes walking back home after anyway and decides to start at the second house so he can get that out the way and have a bit of time trying to sell more chairs to the person in the closest house. He ends up spending too much time trying to convince house number 3s occupant to buy just one chair without any luck such that number 2 has already gone out for lunch with a friend.

How did I come to the p conclusion through mental np type analysis and here in lyes the problem and the solution.
lets say now my traveling sales man is immortal and sales to ten different houses in a town of 4500 houses every day.
he sells to ten different houses than the day before and he uses various differernt ways of calculating with different multiples of numbers representing 1 to 10000 to work out his journey every day each day homming in on a more optimal p type solution that works for all the routes he could take eventually considering the map never changes he finds eventually the optimal p type solution for all optimal routes given any possible 10 sales but realises some thing very significant. simply finding the p type solution was an np problem.
Is it possible to use a p type solution instead by which to find an np solution of course it is you could map every possiblity in a type of p form that ultimatly gives you the optimal travelling sales man solution for every 10 different sales would this be quicker than using an np solution every day it can be yes depending on how many days he does this but you need to work in np to work it out quick enough. what im talking about is a relatavistic paradox.

Whats the purpose of stating this paradox well because the p to np problem is a relatavistic paradox theres infinitley many ways to prove this.
The simplist proof being it required you np time in the first place to work out how to count from 1 to what ever in integers more np time to realise fractions and decimal places yet more np time to make good use of 0 and you've barely scratched the surface so does p = np yes it does because theres all possible solutions in p time but also no because you need np time to discover the right possibilities. so at the point of an able p working up too infinity to the power of infinity of complexity such a polynomial equation can solve all np problems from here to infinity but you need infinite np time just to understand the p logic required for such an polynomial time function.

why is this of any relavence actually its of major relevence.
this means as intelligence evolves it achieves ever closer to optimal solutions for all encountered complex problems.

In other words the pursute is required by which to find the solution but there is always a p time solution with the exception of problems involving infinite degres of complexity unless you are working with infinite complexity as you method of counting with p time. in other words the p to np problem is a paradox that converges at the point of infinite complexity.