3 ms·

Here is some additional context: https://twitter.com/rrwilliams/status/1417161397960646658 https://twitter.com/rrwilliams/status/1417161397960646658

ineedasername 5y ago
Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. I was surprised to see ACM on there because if they were even close to publishing something like that it would already be making massive waves.
throwaway81523 5y ago
Thanks, that is a tweet by Ryan Williams (complexity theorist extraordinaire) who is on the editorial board of that journal, confirming that the paper was rejected, then accidentally dropped into the publish queue. A better publication venue might have been here: https://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm https://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm That page links to a lot of P=NP proofs and also P!=NP proofs. I haven't counted them up lately so I don't know which is ahead.
- jvanderbot 5y ago
  This entry from the survey was my favorite: Prediction by Richard Chang:(Univ of MD Balt County, 2066, P6=NP) In the year, 2066 the idea that computers will double in speed every 18 months (Moore’s Law) has been ludicrous for 50years. As such, no one uses asymptotic analysis anymore. Programs are written in assembly language to shave the running time. Some poor assistant professor will prove that P != NP and fail to get tenure for it Though I would guess predictive programming and execution would look more like an AI system and would be clawing at throughput gains by "learning" how the programmer of the current program expected things to go ... rather than the programmer working in ASM to make it so.
  - jl2718 5y ago
    If it gets to that point, which I think it will, then the there will be no such thing as an instruction set. Computing will be reconfigurable asynchronous data flow.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  I had never thought of P=NP or not being chosen by vote, but if it's formally undecidable, we might end up there.
  - cyanydeez 5y ago
    what counts as a nontrivial proof? better submit this comment!
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ineedasername 5y ago

Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. I was surprised to see ACM on there because if they were even close to publishing something like that it would already be making massive waves.

throwaway81523 5y ago

Thanks, that is a tweet by Ryan Williams (complexity theorist extraordinaire) who is on the editorial board of that journal, confirming that the paper was rejected, then accidentally dropped into the publish queue. A better publication venue might have been here: https://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm https://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm That page links to a lot of P=NP proofs and also P!=NP proofs. I haven't counted them up lately so I don't know which is ahead.

jvanderbot 5y ago
This entry from the survey was my favorite: Prediction by Richard Chang:(Univ of MD Balt County, 2066, P6=NP) In the year, 2066 the idea that computers will double in speed every 18 months (Moore’s Law) has been ludicrous for 50years. As such, no one uses asymptotic analysis anymore. Programs are written in assembly language to shave the running time. Some poor assistant professor will prove that P != NP and fail to get tenure for it Though I would guess predictive programming and execution would look more like an AI system and would be clawing at throughput gains by "learning" how the programmer of the current program expected things to go ... rather than the programmer working in ASM to make it so.
- jl2718 5y ago
  If it gets to that point, which I think it will, then the there will be no such thing as an instruction set. Computing will be reconfigurable asynchronous data flow.
ncmncm 5y ago
I had never thought of P=NP or not being chosen by vote, but if it's formally undecidable, we might end up there.
- cyanydeez 5y ago
  what counts as a nontrivial proof? better submit this comment!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]