2 ms·

While the non-experts did get excited early on, I haven't observed any flailing between extremes on the blogs of the computational complexity theorists I follow

While the non-experts did get excited early on, I haven't observed any flailing between extremes on the blogs of the computational complexity theorists I follow (R.J. Lipton and Scott Aaronson). Initially, Lipton seemed neutral, and Aaronson was skeptical. Since then, I've seen the dial on Lipton's blog move steadily towards "nothing to see here, move along". I personally agree with those who believe that the draft is too disorganized to warrant further study by experts. If the author had used the traditional definition/proof/lemma style, the problems that have been pointed out so far would have been immediately visible, rather taking the experts days to untangle. [edit: For example, John Harrison, the author of the HOL Light proof-checking system, wrote on August 10: "As far as I can tell, nobody’s quite managed to work out what exactly the statistical property of k-SAT he’s using is." http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=456#comment-44852 http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=456#comment-44852] I don't mean this as a critique of the Deolalikar himself, but I do think he sent out his draft too soon.

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
It seems to me (with no privileged information) that he suffered from sending a written copy to a selcet number who he expected would treat it in confidence, but not all of whom did. I think it's great that he had a "thought piece" written, and I think it's great that he started to consult a few trusted colleagues. I think it's a real shame that the "think piece" was leaked. If he'd taken six months to go over it in person, orally, calmly and in seclusion with a few chosen colleagues then there may have been a chance to either declare it unworkable, or to fix the holes. As it is, that didn't happen and we get this mess. On the other hand, lots of people have seen - in some sense - real math in action. Maybe that's a good thing.

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago

It seems to me (with no privileged information) that he suffered from sending a written copy to a selcet number who he expected would treat it in confidence, but not all of whom did. I think it's great that he had a "thought piece" written, and I think it's great that he started to consult a few trusted colleagues. I think it's a real shame that the "think piece" was leaked. If he'd taken six months to go over it in person, orally, calmly and in seclusion with a few chosen colleagues then there may have been a chance to either declare it unworkable, or to fix the holes. As it is, that didn't happen and we get this mess. On the other hand, lots of people have seen - in some sense - real math in action. Maybe that's a good thing.