tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post5498835329170098240..comments2021-05-15T14:25:46.140-05:00Comments on Computational Complexity: My two cents on P vs NPLance Fortnowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06752030912874378610noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-70916472052387904672011-01-15T09:37:11.881-06:002011-01-15T09:37:11.881-06:00There is one authentic solution to P vs NP as P = ...There is one authentic solution to P vs NP as P = NP on this link.This paper was accepted and later retracted from ACM journal Elsevier.<br />http://www.archive.org/details/PVsNpAretheySameAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-21646923086249247082010-05-07T10:09:00.268-05:002010-05-07T10:09:00.268-05:00luigi offers a new entry on the list of proof meth...luigi offers a new entry on the list of proof methods given on the site<br /><br />http://school.maths.uwa.edu.au/~berwin/humour/invalid.proofs.html<br /><br />.. proof by wikipedia..<br /><br />seems to fall at some of the checks listed on <br /><br />http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-38853373887624714032009-09-25T18:12:30.555-05:002009-09-25T18:12:30.555-05:00Perhaps this has already been addressed somewhere ...Perhaps this has already been addressed somewhere else in the blog, but after reading comments like #4 and #9 above, it would be great if the blog author(s) could comment on the proliferation of so-called proofs for the P vs. NP problem. <br /><br />See, for example, the following webpage (http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm) for a number of different "proofs" that P=NP, or P/=NP, or that P vs. NP is undecidable. <br /><br />Arguably most of this activity comes from individuals without very deep expertise in theoretical computer science and these proofs are very likely full of errors, but still, is anybody paying attention to this? Checking the proofs? Informing the masses (as well as the authors of these proofs)? <br /><br />What is the TCS experts' view of all this activity?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-29288551778667999262009-09-25T07:37:11.494-05:002009-09-25T07:37:11.494-05:00luigi made no mistake. the most profound comment i...luigi made no mistake. the most profound comment in his proof of P=NP was "having spent over 2 years to achieve this there are no<br />complicated ideas or sophisticated development will, if I'm right how can this result<br />has been hidden for so long?"<br /><br />and i ask you, the reader, how could it have been deprived of us? finally, the long lasting conjecture (of all times) has been resolved. <br />I think we should conclude all these posts by thanking the author for his breakthrough.raffaelonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-61273714046875278672009-09-25T02:26:17.979-05:002009-09-25T02:26:17.979-05:00" mario said...
actually luigi finally r..." mario said...<br /><br /> actually luigi finally resolved the problem.<br /> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0909/0909.3868.pdf"<br /><br /><br />Someone proved that P=NP in 9 pages? Hmm...<br /><br />if anyone can be bothered reading through this, tell us how he made a mistake :PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-77013882415808140522009-09-25T02:11:40.222-05:002009-09-25T02:11:40.222-05:00More "will P vs NP be solved" posts? Thi...More "will P vs NP be solved" posts? This is getting a bit old ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-929687034546548722009-09-24T21:19:38.477-05:002009-09-24T21:19:38.477-05:00why would you be a fool to say you found P=NP?why would you be a fool to say you found P=NP?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-45590706949612512732009-09-24T19:40:13.683-05:002009-09-24T19:40:13.683-05:00Second argument is incomplete. We also need to kno...Second argument is incomplete. We also need to know how hard a proof for P=NP supposing P=NP was true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-86421102406922602662009-09-24T16:39:44.134-05:002009-09-24T16:39:44.134-05:00actually luigi finally resolved the problem.
http...actually luigi finally resolved the problem. <br />http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0909/0909.3868.pdfmarionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-81846368266482533022009-09-24T15:50:38.219-05:002009-09-24T15:50:38.219-05:00Golly ... the subtlety of argument (2) compels adm...Golly ... the subtlety of argument (2) compels admiration ... it is an argument that I for one have *never* heard before.John Sidleshttp://www.mrfm.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-73941366489776162942009-09-24T14:28:25.611-05:002009-09-24T14:28:25.611-05:00For Q2, if P vs NP was solved, and it was known to...For Q2, if P vs NP was solved, and it was known to be solved then it must have been P≠NP; only a fool would tell people if they found P=NP.Poita_https://www.blogger.com/profile/09778851161711133774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-34549411439289698952009-09-24T12:31:11.954-05:002009-09-24T12:31:11.954-05:00I love the first Question and its Answer.I love the first Question and its Answer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com