Hopefully, these posts will raise issues about conventional wisdom, and these issues will cause you to re-examine whether or not “obviously” P≠NP.Lipton even suggests we should have a stimulus package for P = NP.
I would like to suggest that the government (NSF?) should fund a major project on P=NP, with the goal of accelerating the discovery of a solution.I agree with Lipton on the importance of the P v. NP problem, but I am a strong believer of the conventional wisdom. Just because many people believe in something that doesn't mean you should doubt it.
But my main concern is that the most likely outcome of such a project would be no significant progress towards settling the P v. NP problem in either direction, potentially making some proclaim the project a "failure". We have a theory-friendly NSF now but that won't last forever and I would hate to hand future NSF leaders any ammunition against theory funding.