3 ms·
> From what I have read in the comments, there seems to be other papers which have also proved P!=NP. None of those papers have been accepted as correct, the p
by CarolineW 9y ago
> From what I have read in the comments, there seems to be other papers which have also proved P!=NP.
None of those papers have been accepted as correct, the problem remains open.
There's a gazillion articles describing the context and importance, and I suggest you do a web search for something like "P vs NP and why it's important".
Here's one: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=459 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=459
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1605415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1605415
- fazkan 9y agoThanks for the reply. Thats a great article. I have read a lot of articles like that, in fact was planning to write one myself. Just wanted to know more about the paper submitted i.e. what it proposes and the methodology adapted. I tried reading it but couldnt parse the data with all the jargons.
- CarolineW 9y agoThat's not the question you asked. If you want to know more about the context of this specific paper then you need to (a) wait for the people in the area to start writing explanations, or (b) ask more specific questions about specific terms. A good place to start to get a sense of what's going on with this specific paper is this thread, but more particularly, the articles linked from it. One that I think is a great starting point is this one: https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/norbert-blum-on-p-versus-np/ https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/norbert-blum... But you should perhaps start by asking the question you actually want the answer to - it sounds like you didn't. So take a moment, do some reading, then come back with particular questions. They may already be answered, but before you did the outside reading you didn't realise. That's what happens to me.