3 ms·
arXiv == not peer reviewed. I know I'm not qualified to judge this paper; anybody in here that is? edit: He appears to be a professor at Uppsala University in
by llimllib 18y ago
arXiv == not peer reviewed. I know I'm not qualified to judge this paper; anybody in here that is?
edit: He appears to be a professor at Uppsala University in sweden: http://user.it.uu.se/~stenake/ http://user.it.uu.se/~stenake/ .
- jacobscott 18y agoSorry, the key point is that the assertion: "Therefore, P is not equal to NP, is true and provable in a simply consistent extension B" of B" does not necessarily imply P \neq NP (the caveat being the B" and B stuff). I'm not really a complexity theory guy, but I would say WHP that this either (a) does not apply to the most general forms of computation (e.g., what people mean when they ask P =? NP) (b) is wrong
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- neilc 18y agoHis homepage is amusingly antiquated, even for an academic.
- tlrobinson 18y agoI think "minimal" is the preferred term.
- jncraton 18y agoPerhaps, but antiquated probably applies given that he has yahoo listed in his "hot links"
- Alex3917 18y ago"arXiv == not peer reviewed." Although amusingly, I heard that Cornell was sued for not allowing creationists to post their physics theories there.