2 ms·
I am not that convinced admittedly. He makes statements like this in his blog : > I’ll leave it to the commenters to debate whether Deolalikar’s paper exhibit
by shadowfox 16y ago
I am not that convinced admittedly. He makes statements like this in his blog :
> I’ll leave it to the commenters to debate whether Deolalikar’s paper exhibits one or more of the Ten Signs A Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough Is Wrong.
- equark 16y agoI know next to nothing about P!=NP, but am quite familiar with the statistics literature. Glancing at this paper made me immediately skeptical. Pages 12-27 are reviews of very basic results in statistics. Maybe it sounds like important stuff to CS researchers unfamiliar with this research, but to me it sounds like a basic review of results. That violates Scott's Rule 8. It probably also violates Rule 10 as well, but I'm not familiar with what's considered powerful in CS. http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304 http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304
- shadowfox 16y agoI was not really commenting on the paper or its contents. That is beyond me. Rather I was commenting on the fact that the blog post is not as neutral as some commentators believed it to be.