tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post3121871012533153752..comments2024-11-03T21:27:06.200-06:00Comments on Computational Complexity: Problem X won't be solved in MY lifetime- but what about...Lance Fortnowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06752030912874378610noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-64678760443593013582022-03-15T13:33:49.036-05:002022-03-15T13:33:49.036-05:00I had a blog post where I say that the false proof...I had a blog post where I say that the false proofs that resolve P vs NP have rarely lead to anything interesting:<br /><br />https://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2015/03/has-anything-interesting-every-come-out.htmlgasarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03004932739846901628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-31232033391838038652022-03-15T13:28:51.516-05:002022-03-15T13:28:51.516-05:00You never know. Reputed people have tried to publi...You never know. Reputed people have tried to publish false proofs. They might contain new ideas even if they are wrong.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15215802322939426847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-37377675630667958692022-03-15T11:20:12.001-05:002022-03-15T11:20:12.001-05:00^^It seems pretty ridiculous to me to think that &...^^It seems pretty ridiculous to me to think that "false proofs attempted so far" have anything interesting to say here... are you familiar with many examples of such false proofs (I assume you're referring to crank P = NP proofs for example) which did lead to other interesting ideas? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-82850015101757588652022-03-15T10:19:19.176-05:002022-03-15T10:19:19.176-05:00Regarding RH, if you are inclined to believe Delig...Regarding RH, if you are inclined to believe Deligne's proof for analog as progress you might be wrong. There is no Frobenius in the context of original RH. Why should same proof work? It may very well be the whole community has been fooling itself. For P=BPP I wonder if any of the false proofs attempted so for in the context of NP not in P/poly might work for E not in i.o.P/poly? Any thoughts why known strategies cannot work?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15215802322939426847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-51869523181756785272022-03-15T10:08:24.987-05:002022-03-15T10:08:24.987-05:00There has been steady progress on RH over the year...There has been steady progress on RH over the years. However, When Larry Washington said it I think there had been some progress recently. But yes, it seems to have died down.<br /><br />Same with P=BPP: There has been some progress on this, but it seems to have stopped. <br /><br />For P=NP I have seen no progress.<br /><br />But of course, who knows! Here is hoping that just to prove me wrong you solve P vs NP!gasarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03004932739846901628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-50346455078332040872022-03-15T10:05:25.685-05:002022-03-15T10:05:25.685-05:00Why Riemann and P=BPP in your lifetime but not P=N...Why Riemann and P=BPP in your lifetime but not P=NP?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15215802322939426847noreply@blogger.com