Can someone call Knuth? If he gives it the thumbs up then I'll believe it.
P ≠ NP
11–20 of 233 posts
Re: P ≠ NP
#12Why isn't this in a peer-reviewed journal?
Re: P ≠ NP
#13That paper is written just a smidgen above my reading level.
[deleted]
Re: P ≠ NP
#14WOW. Assuming this isn't a hoax, and the proof holds up, this is front-page news kind of big deal. As I recall, this has way more real-world practical usage than the Fermats Last Theorem proof. Read the "Consequences of Proof" section in the Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem [edit] The responses below are correct. Proving P=NP means the world gets turned upside down. P != NP is…
Emphasizing the "assuming this isn't a hoax" part, even if it is correct, I don't think it is a life-changing deal.
Computer Scientists have been assuming for years that P does not equal NP, so they've been doing research with that assumption already in place. Proving that the assumption is correct won't hugely change anything.
I'm not trying to knock down the greatness of this proof, but the repercussions aren't going to be that major.
Re: P ≠ NP
#15WOW. Assuming this isn't a hoax, and the proof holds up, this is front-page news kind of big deal. As I recall, this has way more real-world practical usage than the Fermats Last Theorem proof. Read the "Consequences of Proof" section in the Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem [edit] The responses below are correct. Proving P=NP means the world gets turned upside down. P != NP is…
Well, assuming this proof holds up (and there are already links in the comments to other proofs that P != NP) they have proven what most people already assume, that the two are not equivalent. The consequences of P != NP are mostly just that people can stop spending time looking for ways for P to equal NP. Which is valuable, but doesn't have much "real-world practical usage"
Re: P ≠ NP
#16WOW. Assuming this isn't a hoax, and the proof holds up, this is front-page news kind of big deal. As I recall, this has way more real-world practical usage than the Fermats Last Theorem proof. Read the "Consequences of Proof" section in the Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem [edit] The responses below are correct. Proving P=NP means the world gets turned upside down. P != NP is…
a) Complicated academic proofs take (and should take) months if not years to verify, and will only be "front-page news" after verification. This is hardly the first unverified proof of the [edit: possible (in)]equality of P and NP.
b) The practical consequences of P=NP are immense. The practical consequences of P≠NP are that we can stop looking for computational unicorns and fairies.
We have for some time thought that P≠NP, but boy do people like those unicorns and fairies.
Re: P ≠ NP
#17WOW. Assuming this isn't a hoax, and the proof holds up, this is front-page news kind of big deal. As I recall, this has way more real-world practical usage than the Fermats Last Theorem proof. Read the "Consequences of Proof" section in the Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem [edit] The responses below are correct. Proving P=NP means the world gets turned upside down. P != NP is…
Well, assuming this proof holds up (and there are already links in the comments to other proofs that P != NP) they have proven what most people already assume, that the two are not equivalent. The consequences of P != NP are mostly just that people can stop spending time looking for ways for P to equal NP. Which is valuable, but doesn't have much "real-world practical usage"
[deleted]
Re: P ≠ NP
#18Why isn't this in a peer-reviewed journal?
[deleted]
Re: P ≠ NP
#19Why isn't this in a peer-reviewed journal?
[deleted]
Re: P ≠ NP
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, assuming this proof holds up (and there are already links in the comments to other proofs that P != NP) they have proven what most people already assume, that the two are not equivalent. The consequences of P != NP are mostly just that people can stop spending time looking for ways for P to equal NP. Which is valuable, but doesn't have much "real-world practical usage"
[deleted]
A proof of P = NP would have huge practical consequences. A proof that P != NP "only" represents a huge advance in the theory of computation.