3 ms·

The sad part is that “Vinay Deolalikar is standing by his P!=NP claim and proof.” It will be harder for future attempts to be taken seriously, if even the auth

The sad part is that “Vinay Deolalikar is standing by his P!=NP claim and proof.” It will be harder for future attempts to be taken seriously, if even the author of this comparatively-serious effort ends behaving like a crank rather than a scientist. Edited to add: I don't mean to give the impression I'm unsympathetic to Deolalikar's predicament. He didn't intend the draft to be public as far as I know, and it's hard to back down from a public claim like this. But all the experts who have studied it believe it to be flawed; there is a wiki documenting specific problems in detail; and Terry Tao is speculating about whether it could be proven that no strategy of that general sort could possibly work. It is definitely a worrying sign for Deolalikar to be standing by his work at this point. I'm not sure whether the downvotes are because you disagree with this assessment, or simply because I didn't explain myself very clearly. If you look at any mathematical crank – and there are many, with varying levels of mathematical education – the basic story is always the same. It begins with an honest mistake made in good faith; what distinguishes the crank is refusal to learn from his or her mistakes. I hope I'm wrong, and Deolalikar sees sense and withdraws his claim at least until he's addressed the concerns that have been raised so far.

sriramk 16y ago
I have more sympathy. The guy has worked on this for a few years. I'd stick to my guns too (for a while atleast) :)
- benofsky 16y ago
  He also didn't intend for it to be published!
  - shadowfox 16y ago
    I am not surprised by OP's response though. A number of people on Lipton's page, including some people with strong credentials, were of the opinion that the researchers were wasting their time.
brg 16y ago
There is a huge difference between being a crank and being incorrect. The death of subtly is depressing. This line by Lipton is a response to the questions that were raised when the preprint was removed Deolalikar’s personal HP page on Monday. Many were wondering if it was a retraction, and this is denying that. But as so far as I have seen in Toa's wiki or Lipton's forums, there has not yet been a specific object to any lemma or claim in the paper. The author has no more reason to believe there is a flaw in his argument than he did on August 6.
mlinsey 16y ago
OK, I am unqualified to comment on this proof because the math is over my head, but what is wrong about Deolalikar's response that is posted in the article? The author copies the comment, does not point out where it is wrong, and goes on to talk about how the methods behind the proof may be useful even though it is still probably unfixable. Does a more mathematically sophisticated person really read Deolalikar's comment and immediately recognize it as invalid and/or desparate? To the point where we're now saying that to engage and respond to critiques is to "behave like a crank rather than a scientist"?
rjurney 16y ago
There is no reason to be a dick.
RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
> The sad part is that “Vinay Deolalikar is > standing by his P!=NP claim and proof.” Why is this sad? He is effectively saying that as things stand, he, who has worked on this proof for years, knows and understands it better than the people who've had a day or two to look at it. Further, it's plausible, even likely, that most of the early objections are simple misunderstandings, or finding things that haven't been explained fully. There's nothing wrong with standing by the proof at this stage - it's entirely appropriate. What have been found so far are a few holes and a meta-concern over the potentially overly broad applicability to known false results. It's all normal. Part of the problem of this process happening in the full glare of publicity like this is that entirely normal things are mis-interpreted and then blown out of proportion. No wonder Wiles spent so long hiding, and then only confided in exactly one person to start with, without writing it all down in a widely disseminatable form.

sriramk 16y ago

I have more sympathy. The guy has worked on this for a few years. I'd stick to my guns too (for a while atleast) :)

benofsky 16y ago
He also didn't intend for it to be published!
- shadowfox 16y ago
  I am not surprised by OP's response though. A number of people on Lipton's page, including some people with strong credentials, were of the opinion that the researchers were wasting their time.

brg 16y ago

There is a huge difference between being a crank and being incorrect. The death of subtly is depressing. This line by Lipton is a response to the questions that were raised when the preprint was removed Deolalikar’s personal HP page on Monday. Many were wondering if it was a retraction, and this is denying that. But as so far as I have seen in Toa's wiki or Lipton's forums, there has not yet been a specific object to any lemma or claim in the paper. The author has no more reason to believe there is a flaw in his argument than he did on August 6.

mlinsey 16y ago

OK, I am unqualified to comment on this proof because the math is over my head, but what is wrong about Deolalikar's response that is posted in the article? The author copies the comment, does not point out where it is wrong, and goes on to talk about how the methods behind the proof may be useful even though it is still probably unfixable. Does a more mathematically sophisticated person really read Deolalikar's comment and immediately recognize it as invalid and/or desparate? To the point where we're now saying that to engage and respond to critiques is to "behave like a crank rather than a scientist"?

rjurney 16y ago

There is no reason to be a dick.

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago

> The sad part is that “Vinay Deolalikar is > standing by his P!=NP claim and proof.” Why is this sad? He is effectively saying that as things stand, he, who has worked on this proof for years, knows and understands it better than the people who've had a day or two to look at it. Further, it's plausible, even likely, that most of the early objections are simple misunderstandings, or finding things that haven't been explained fully. There's nothing wrong with standing by the proof at this stage - it's entirely appropriate. What have been found so far are a few holes and a meta-concern over the potentially overly broad applicability to known false results. It's all normal. Part of the problem of this process happening in the full glare of publicity like this is that entirely normal things are mis-interpreted and then blown out of proportion. No wonder Wiles spent so long hiding, and then only confided in exactly one person to start with, without writing it all down in a widely disseminatable form.