Perhaps you're right regarding the first point, I'm just going off what he states in the OP: "Also two independent versions of the algorithm in programming lang

Perhaps you're right regarding the first point, I'm just going off what he states in the OP: "Also two independent versions of the algorithm in programming languages have been implemented." My point is that a constructivist proof that P=NP along with working code (again I'm assuming it's implemented correctly, as it appears vetted by Romanov) is easier to prove incorrect as it's easier for someone who perhaps doesn't have the theoretical background to find pathological examples where it breaks down (and a much wider audience fits in this category, including most of HN). I agree with your point about the false sense of security however--an inability to find such pathological cases is not sufficient to prove P=NP. In order to truly verify the claim a rigorous analysis of the proof will be necessary--but in this situation it's much easier to show what this guy is saying is false than in the Deolalikar case.