4 ms·
This is definitely one of those "I'm going to wait for the peer review" claims, but it is pretty exciting. Pros: The author is not a dilettante, and is activel
by ajarmst 9y ago
This is definitely one of those "I'm going to wait for the peer review" claims, but it is pretty exciting.
Pros: The author is not a dilettante, and is actively researching in the area (http://theory.cs.uni-bonn.de/blum/Forschung/forsch.var http://theory.cs.uni-bonn.de/blum/Forschung/forsch.var)
Cons: It's not my area, but I was expecting something a little more novel for a solution to P?NP. This almost seems too simple (it might almost fit in a margin...).
Could be pro or con: Single author. It's becoming rare for important new work to not have multiple authors, especially from professional academics. However, Andrew Wiles...
- jxramos 9y ago+1 like the reference to Fermat's ghost here and all those connotations in that short ponder.
- mikek 9y agoThe author's other publications: http://theory.cs.uni-bonn.de/blum/PubBlum.var http://theory.cs.uni-bonn.de/blum/PubBlum.var
- btilly 9y agoThe paper looks like it is 38 pages and builds on other work. That doesn't seem too simple to me.
- ethan_g 9y agoI tend to agree with GP that this is suspiciously simple. I've only skimmed it, but the novel part of the proof appears to only be Thm 5-6 which is less than 10 pages, and it's not especially dense writing. So this would be a relatively simple proof. Moreover, the technique used appears to be rather incremental over known techniques, so it's surprising it would be strong enough to prove PvNP which is so far away from the frontier of known techniques.
- daveFNbuck 9y agoThe known technique was a proof of an exponential lower bound on something extremely similar to an NP-complete problem. That moved the frontier of known techniques a lot closer to P vs NP.
- freyir 9y ago> However, Andrew Wiles... Grigori Perelman also comes to mind.
- enedil 9y agoI would rather tell "Shinichi Mochizuki"