Tang is smart, but the author of this piece is unfairly characterizing Aaronson's beliefs and the nature of the P=NP problem. I don't know a single mathematici

Tang is smart, but the author of this piece is unfairly characterizing Aaronson's beliefs and the nature of the P=NP problem. I don't know a single mathematician or computer scientist researcher that thinks that P=NP is likely. I know they exist, based on this poll[0], but in practice P equaling NP would be incredibly surprising. And even if it does somehow, I highly doubt the equality would practically hold. The reason I think it is fair for Aaronson to operate as if P!=NP is that even if it is unproven, it doesn't mean we can't make judgements about its relative likelihood. I haven't proven that all beetles are slower than the fastest cheetah, but based on what I understand about cheetahs and beetles I can operate as if I do and change my mind if I'm proven wrong. I think it's less likely that P=NP than it is that a beetle can outrace a cheetah. [0] http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/papers/poll2012.pdf http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/papers/poll2012.pdf