Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone should research and write a paper about it.
But then how will we know that paper is correct?
By using the algorithm!
A Solution of the P versus NP Problem?
221–230 of 303 posts
Re: A Solution of the P versus NP Problem?
#222I see a few typos in the wording of the paper (e.g., "spezify", "touchs", etc.). While this doesn't mean much, I would expect if the paper had gotten a fine-toothed comb review that these sorts of typos would have been caught. Moving back to the "not holding my breath" stance unless there start to be indications from experts in the field that the claims are holding up.
Re: A Solution of the P versus NP Problem?
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all. But bringing him up in an unrelated post on a technical blog just screams "virtue signaling" to me.
In what world is Scott Aaronson, a professor whose primary research area is computational complexity, unrelated to a P=NP solution?
I was saying that President Trump is unrelated to the usual topics on that blog.
Re: A Solution of the P versus NP Problem?
#224If p != np, then comp sci will lose much of its appeal. There is an underlying hope behind the field that p = np, otherwise most problems of interest are intractable, and programmers are no longer masters of the universe. This is probably why there is not a proof yet, since the truth is undesirable.
> If p != np, then comp sci will lose much of its appeal. Say what? A lot of work is based on the assumption that P!=NP so you have to be clever in other ways.
All that work is boring to the non specialist. It's the promise of unlimited power that gives IT glamor.
Re: A Solution of the P versus NP Problem?
#225I see a few typos in the wording of the paper (e.g., "spezify", "touchs", etc.). While this doesn't mean much, I would expect if the paper had gotten a fine-toothed comb review that these sorts of typos would have been caught. Moving back to the "not holding my breath" stance unless there start to be indications from experts in the field that the claims are holding up.
The paper is on arXiv, so we don't know if it's gotten a fine-toothed comb review yet. Furthermore, some reviewers seem to ignore those kinds of typos, which means a paper might have been reviewed carefully for the technical contents, but not at all for language.
Re: A Solution of the P versus NP Problem?
#226Re: A Solution of the P versus NP Problem?
#227I like the straightforward title. I know that it is politically correct to christen your paper solving e.g. the Poincare conjecture like e.g. "Ricci flow with surgery on three-manifolds", but all rules are there to be broken once. I wish the author best of luck.
I was actually disappointed that the title was obfuscated. I would have named it something like "P does not equal NP" or if I wanted to hedge my bets a bit more "A proof that P does not equal NP"
I think you could call this academic clickbait. I know I clicked to find out what his conclusion actually was.
Re: A Solution of the P versus NP Problem?
#228Re: A Solution of the P versus NP Problem?
#229Re: A Solution of the P versus NP Problem?
#230I see a few typos in the wording of the paper (e.g., "spezify", "touchs", etc.). While this doesn't mean much, I would expect if the paper had gotten a fine-toothed comb review that these sorts of typos would have been caught. Moving back to the "not holding my breath" stance unless there start to be indications from experts in the field that the claims are holding up.
I can forgive imperfect English. He's not a native English speaker and his reviewers probably are not be either.