3 ms·

Which journal was this?

guilamu 11y ago
It's been in review in the "Journal of Computing and System Sciences"" for one year. Here's the reviewer comment: 'The paper claims among other things that 3SAT canb solved in polynomial time. However the approach outlined in the paper is simply wrong. Proposition 8 for example asserts that the 3-SAT problem accepts a deterministic solution if and only if the LP system Eq. (10) is feasible. This is simply wrong. The transformation of the 3qAT problem into LP is fallacious, and even if it were valid, it is integYLal (0,1)-solutions that one should be looking for, not just any real solution. Finding integral solutions to an LP is in general NP-hard. '
- deadgrey19 11y ago
  This sounds like a fair and reasonable criticism of the the paper, it says that there are factual errors that should be addresses and it echo's comments by others here on HN (i.e. that a real solution is not sufficient, the solutions should be integral). Believe me, I've had a far less helpful and much more antagonistic reviews for a paper that was eventually accepted (after much revision). If you address the concerns, either with proofs or with references to other papers, you could resubmit. Another approach might be an experimental one. As they say "the proof is in the pudding". There are plenty of SAT solvers out there and plenty of SAT benchmarks and tests that they run on. Implement your approach and run it against the benchmarks for varying size of benchmark and against other SAT solvers. If your approach gets the same answers and consistently outperforms other implementations (especially for large N, where the non-poly terms will dominate) then you have an empirical proof. I would guess that a sufficiently large problem that takes 2-3 days to solve should be solvable by your approach within minutes. Assuming this works and you get the same answer, open source the solution and the tests so that others can play with it. If others can reproduce your results, then you have applied the scientific method, although through usual ways, to prove your point.

It's been in review in the "Journal of Computing and System Sciences"" for one year. Here's the reviewer comment: 'The paper claims among other things that 3SAT canb solved in polynomial time. However the approach outlined in the paper is simply wrong. Proposition 8 for example asserts that the 3-SAT problem accepts a deterministic solution if and only if the LP system Eq. (10) is feasible. This is simply wrong. The transformation of the 3qAT problem into LP is fallacious, and even if it were valid, it is integYLal (0,1)-solutions that one should be looking for, not just any real solution. Finding integral solutions to an LP is in general NP-hard. '

deadgrey19 11y ago
This sounds like a fair and reasonable criticism of the the paper, it says that there are factual errors that should be addresses and it echo's comments by others here on HN (i.e. that a real solution is not sufficient, the solutions should be integral). Believe me, I've had a far less helpful and much more antagonistic reviews for a paper that was eventually accepted (after much revision). If you address the concerns, either with proofs or with references to other papers, you could resubmit. Another approach might be an experimental one. As they say "the proof is in the pudding". There are plenty of SAT solvers out there and plenty of SAT benchmarks and tests that they run on. Implement your approach and run it against the benchmarks for varying size of benchmark and against other SAT solvers. If your approach gets the same answers and consistently outperforms other implementations (especially for large N, where the non-poly terms will dominate) then you have an empirical proof. I would guess that a sufficiently large problem that takes 2-3 days to solve should be solvable by your approach within minutes. Assuming this works and you get the same answer, open source the solution and the tests so that others can play with it. If others can reproduce your results, then you have applied the scientific method, although through usual ways, to prove your point.