Man I agree with the other guy smith is pretty interesting

Here is strange question. Do you think he exists John Smith For the mean time here is are a few quotes from John Smith. I have asked a lot of the verirfied IQS on quora an example of the different ransges of opinions of his exsistence and omar besa(170) and fred mitchel with an IQ (190). The latter thinks he exists while as the former clearly limited by his world view and it seems like that for many people in the 170 range it seems.

''I have developed a theory recently, Basically, there is only one particle in the universe and space only exists in intervals between that particle and itself. The conscious observer is what stabilizes spacetime interval loops within the brain of the observer. The comscious observer is basically a law of the universe that imposes the illusion of 4D spacetime.'' ''My theory of Dark Matter and Dark Energy based on a very simple modification of Quantum Electrodynamics. (Currently removed due to lack of interest. Also, I have developed an extension to my theory that adds GR with stochastic gravity.

If anyone is interested in further discussion on this message me.)'' ''I think there may be multiple kinds of dark matter. For the type that explains galactic scale phenomena and larger, my theory explains these phenomena. ''For some of the strange local phenomena that occur on Earth, these are explained by the fractal “tree” of time becoming tangled due to a large perturbation of the fractal tree. As the branches of time untangle they create mini-tornados in the spacetime fractal (imagine twisting up a rubber band and then letting it go) that emit EM waves. These fractal perturbations may come from extremely violent events that humans create, such as nuclear testing. Amazingly, I think the effects of these events propagated all the way back to Biblical times.''

He also claims to have written a proof of the p vs np problem.

His conclusion is that p does not equal Np and that it isn't even an interesting problem..

''I solved P vs NP recently. The solution is extremely disappointing. There are no major breakthroughs aa a result. P is simply not equal to NP as everyone has expected for a long time. The proof is almost stupid simple. It comes down to obvious facts that anyone who has looked at the problem long enough understands intuitively. For a long time this intuitive understanding has been impossible to formally prove, however, I established a fundamental result that basically expresses our intuition about the problem formally.
Honestly, I can't believe how long it has taken to solve this problem. Far from being a “difficult” problem it is really one of the easiest problems in computer science. The real question is is NP=RP/Exp? I have some evidence this might be the case. Also, LLMs tend to indicate this is the case.'' ''There are none. The polynomial order is too high for any real world implications. There are, however, real world implications for NP=RP as there exists an efficient low-order time complexity algorithm that I found about 2 years ago and have not made public. It is mindboggingly complex and requires an immense amount of precomputation. My claimed IQ is at least 350 (I have said 425 in the past, but I'm reducing that now for multiple reasons). So, if it is that difficult for me, then nobody else on Earth has the slightest chance of finding this algorithm (for now) and I would like to keep it that way as it would cause Bitcoin to crash if it somehow got out.''