P = NP
feedly.com
P = NP
1–10 of 10 posts
Re: P = NP
#2chrome can't verify authenticity of this link
Re: P = NP
#3...this would be a huge deal if verified. Anyone with the background to understand this able to reduce the paper presented into more manageable terms?
Re: P = NP
#4Some context would be helpful. Is the a credible computer scientist, or just another crackpot? What has been the response of the mathematical community to this? What, if any, are the criticisms of it?
It looks like there have been a number of versions of this paper since last year: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954
So, has anything changed?
Re: P = NP
#5[deleted]
Re: P = NP
#6chrome can't verify authenticity of this link
What does that even mean? It looks like an authentic link to me.
Re: P = NP
#7[Meta: please submit the direct link, not a link-shortened version]
This arXiv paper[1] is apparently from 2012. A good meta-resource and summary of attempts on P ?= NP, including this one, can be found at [2]. From [2]:
> Among all these papers, there is only a single paper that has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, that has thoroughly been verified by the experts in the area, and whose correctness is accepted by the general research community: The paper by Mihalis Yannakakis. (And this paper does not settle the P-versus-NP question, but "just" shows that a certain approach to settling this question will never work out.)
[1] arXiv summary: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954
Re: P = NP
#8Re: P = NP
#9Wasn't this submitted this morning? At which point the community agreed that it was a crackpot?
Why do I get the feeling the same person submitted it again hoping to catch the late-night readers off-guard...
Re: P = NP
#10Wasn't this submitted this morning? At which point the community agreed that it was a crackpot? Why do I get the feeling the same person submitted it again hoping to catch the late-night readers off-guard...
Do you have a link to that please?