3 ms·
The paper has not been peer reviewed yet. Therefore the conjecture has not yet been solved. Have we forgot the recent NP≠P paper? The author was also a highly-
by yuvadam 15y ago
The paper has not been peer reviewed yet. Therefore the conjecture has not yet been solved.
Have we forgot the recent NP≠P paper? The author was also a highly-regarded scientist. That did not guarantee anything.
- raganwald 15y agoWas the title edited? It now says possibly solved, which certainly admits that the proof hasn't been reviewed, much less acclaimed.
- brown9-2 15y agoSpeaking of which, was that NP≠P paper debunked? What came of that?
- lawn 15y agoIf I remember correctly it was a work in progress paper and he never really finished it and he didn't intend for it to go public. But someone else should probably correct/confirm me.
- mitmatt 15y agoIt was debunked by some of the top minds in the world (e.g. Terry Tao), though the author's webpage states that it's under journal review. Here's the "official" debunking summary on PolyMath: http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Deolalikar%27s_P!=NP_paper http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Deolalik... If you want to read some of the discussions, a good place to start is RJ Lipton's blog and the comments there: http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/fatal-flaws-in-deolalikars-proof/ http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/fatal-flaws-in-deol... There were also a few HN posts, e.g.: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1600068 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1600068