His earlier post (linked from this) has stronger reasons. I think it’s advisable to keep an open mind on the issue, and not simply on the actual question itsel

His earlier post (linked from this) has stronger reasons. I think it’s advisable to keep an open mind on the issue, and not simply on the actual question itself; it would not be surprising to me if the solution comes from something like adopting a different framework. For example, time bounds and complexity classes smell a lot like conservation laws: “transforming such and such arrangement into such and such arrangement requires at least this much computation.” That said, it’s possible (a) we’re currently failing to consider some “term”, (b) generally ignoring this term doesn’t cause problems when proving lower bounds but (c) the complex border and your “sparse touches” correspond to situations where the missing term plays a more significant role. That’s a case where P probably isn’t equal to NP but keeping an open mind at least leads in more interesting directions, imho. I also think people don’t take seriously the possibility of P being equal to NP but with intrinsically high degree. I say this not to be cute—“what if p is np but still de-facto intractable?”—but because I don’t think anyone has a great intuition for, say, what kinds of algorithms have polynomial solutions of minimum degree, say, 8...at least not in the same way we have good intuition for which algorithms are linear, nlogn, n^2, n^3, and so on. It’s hard for me, at least, to feel overly confident in the “we’ve been working on finding a fast algorithm for seventy years and gotten nowhere” when our algorithmic intuition vis-a-vis higher polynomial degree seems so under-developed. Even if you don’t consider it likely that p equals np, you can still follow this line of thought and consider the possibility that these “sparse touches” may be cases where the slippery problems like graph isomorphism (etc) correspond to problems with polynomial running times of (unexpectedly) high degree...and thus we keep finding these sparse touches along a seemingly-complex border because we don’t yet have a solid intuition for the capabilities of polynomial algorithms of high degree. And so on and so forth. P probably isn’t NP but being dogmatic about it is neither fun nor interesting.