101–110 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
A proof that P != NP also represents the death of an era in which CS could look upon a single problem as motivation in hundreds of different directions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure it is. Scribd has succeeded in going from "the worst pdf viewer on the web" to something that's perfectly usable using HTML5.
2 things. - The html5 transformation is not instant. Everyone gets the Flash reader till the HTML5 version gets ready. Which can be anywhere between minutes to hours (I don't know the avg time). - The HTML5 version or the Flash is worse than a plain old PDF viewer. Have you used the Integrated PDF viewer in Chrome lately? PDF under chrome makes reading PDF fun again, its the fastest/smoothest PDF viewer I have ever u…
Several points on the question of whether the proof is likely to be correct: * As far as I know this paper wasn't circulated for informal peer review before being made public; I heard no talk on the grapevine. (Edit: apparently it was circulated and someone other than the author made it public.) * Therefore a proper assessment is going to take a while. Until then we can only speculate :-) * While the crank attempts a…
I'm not sure if it is or isn't weird that he hasn't published on complexity theory. I recall Gasarch publishing a poll in SIGACT where a handful of the researchers polled claimed that it'll be resolved by someone outside of the field. Regardless, from reading the synopsis of the proof, I'm skeptical to the point of disinterest. (I apologize for not providing a link -- but the only URL I was able to find from Google:…
I skimmed through the synopsis but this philosophical statement baffles me (although obviously it is unrelated to the validity or invalidity of the proof): "The implications of [P ?= NP] on the general philosophical question of [..] whether human creativity can be automated, would be profound." How so? If P!=NP, that is obeyed by the brain as much as by computers and whatever trick our brains does to be creative desp…
While I agree P != NP doesn't say anything about human creativity, but the reason it can't be automated is, I think, different: creativity is closely tied to libido and biological evolution, which in turn can't be simulated in machines in full.
If you mean "can never be simulated in machines in full" I would disagree.
I skimmed through the synopsis but this philosophical statement baffles me (although obviously it is unrelated to the validity or invalidity of the proof): "The implications of [P ?= NP] on the general philosophical question of [..] whether human creativity can be automated, would be profound." How so? If P!=NP, that is obeyed by the brain as much as by computers and whatever trick our brains does to be creative desp…
Very interesting approach! How cool if this is the real deal. The last 30 years has seen a lot of theoretical work on computation as a physical process. If the greatest conjecture in CS is proved using tools from physics it really brings together math, physics, and CS. Edit: As someone else pointed out a few minutes ago http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Vinay_Deolalikar/ confirmations began arriving today. How soon befo…
Edit: Also the Goedel prize
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somewhere, deep in a dark corner of my heart, I hope and pray that this paper is correct, just so we can keep and revere the immortal words "I am pleased to announce a proof that P is not equal to NP, which is attached in 10pt and 12pt fonts ."
I'm not academic - can you explain why he mentioned the font sizes? Why are they relevant?
I assume he included the paper in two font sizes to suit the reader's preference; no deeper meaning.
Why isn't this in a peer-reviewed journal?
To give an example, revolutionary papers by serious researchers are generally directly forwarded to top researchers in that field. No one wait until Science or Nature forwards it to reviewers.
To give an example consider paper proving Primes in P. It was also sent to the researchers in that area rather than waiting for a reviewers of some journal to give review.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somewhere, deep in a dark corner of my heart, I hope and pray that this paper is correct, just so we can keep and revere the immortal words "I am pleased to announce a proof that P is not equal to NP, which is attached in 10pt and 12pt fonts ."
Happy to see it in my collegiate font of choice, Book Antiqua.