> 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, wh

> 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.