Originally posted by CP5670
Aren't they both polynomial operators in the algebraic sense though? ( 4(x+1) and x³ )
Err, actually, I made a little mistake there. It's not "Processing time = ([input size] ^ 3)", it's "Processing time = (3 ^[input size])". My bad.
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, the practical uses all occur in quantum theory, but seriously who cares about that? 
The important thing will be that the solution of the RH will reveal why the prime numbers are distributed the way they are, and thus solve many other fundamental problems in number theory.
Bah, my problem is much cooler, and actually
has practical applications in everyday's life. It
0wnZ your problem.
Originally posted by CP5670
Eh...you are going to prove it through semantics (study of meanings in a linguistic sense) instead of symbolic logic? 
Read that book I mentioned earlier; it has been proven that this task cannot be done and that mathematics is not an independently self-consistent system. (Gödel's incompleteness theorem)
Argh, I won't go into specifics of formal semantics, but yes - you can prove it through symbolic logic applied to semantic constructs. Mathematical constructs are nothing but a very simple and objective language, and you can analyse it's semanthics as well (or even better, due to it's inherent simplicity) as any other language. And in the end, 1+1
will equal
2, whatever symbols you define for each of the elements.
The proof that you mentioned (that I didn't really look into) must have been tried using only mathematical constructs, and that indeed will not be possible. You need a higher level logic to analyse semanthics.
(note: I'm not even checking the equations on this thread, so don't point me to any of those things
)
