3 ms·
Speaking of which, was that NP≠P paper debunked? What came of that?
by brown9-2 15y ago
Speaking 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