6 ms·
Scott Aaronson explains his $200k bet (8 Signs A Claimed P≠NP Proof Is Wrong)
- jballanc 16y agoThis is actually a really great explanation and, perhaps more importantly, a really great example of how science and other academic pursuits really work. Personally, I study computational biochemistry and a lot of work appears on the arXiv long before the official publications. So, I try to keep up with the arXiv, but as this is all non-peer-reviewed I have a similar checklist that I use before spending more time going into the details of the paper. That's not to say that this paper should have been disregarded out of hand. There's a difference between a crackpot and a honest good attempt that deserves further scrutiny. Still, with the number of papers that get published these days, having a list like this is a valuable tool.
- itistoday 16y agoThe nerds with only a cursory interest in the problem are awed.
- itistoday 16y agoThe nerds lack all sense of humor.
- CrazedGeek 16y agoEh, it wasn't really funny.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- itistoday 16y agoNor was it meant to be 'really' funny. It was just an observation, one that I think is fairly accurate. I'd never seen an article on the HN frontpage with so many upvotes (for so long) and zero comments. By lack of humor, I meant an inability to take one's self less seriously.
- cousin_it 16y agoWell, at least we can take you less seriously.
- robryan 16y agoOne good thing this whole paper and debate has done is motivated to get my honours thesis done, mine obviously is nowhere near as profound but it is great to watch people on the edge of advancement in the field attempt to give us new understanding.
- Tycho 16y agoPoint 8 seems a bit unfair - the proof author's comments to me seemed to be 'confirmations of receipt' have started arriving (not confirmations of validation) and 'as you know this problem has philosophical ramifications' (not 'I have forever changed the philosophical landscape'). Otherwise seems like a neat article, maybe I should memorize the other points, could come in handy at dinner parties (cause I, like a lot of other people over the last week, don't know wtf any of this mathematical stuff really means).
- edanm 16y agoI'm not sure if the entire checklist was meant to apply to this specific instance. Mainly since that point also didn't seem right to me.
- jarsj 16y agoAuthor has posted a new synopsis (which answers the first objection raised by Scott and perhaps more) and claims to put out a version addressing the issues raised in 3-4 days. http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Vinay_Deolalikar/ http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Vinay_Deolalikar/
- DougBTX 16y agoI'd be happy for him to take his time, and release an update in 3-4 months.
- jarsj 16y agoYes this is probably getting too much hectic for him. Handling PR is not something he is expected to be good at.
- jrockway 16y agoIndeed. He just needs to say, "dear world. the paper you have been reading was unfinished and was leaked without my permission. please disregard it until i release a version that is sane. kthx, bye."
- jcsalterego 16y agoBut reading the overview felt like reading Joseph Conrad’s _Heart of Darkness_: I’d reread the same paragraph over and over, because the words would evaporate before they could stick to my brain. shudder
- jrockway 16y agoI think you mean, "The horror! The horror!"
- jcsalterego 16y agoWell played, jrockway. Well played.