3 ms·
It’s fascinating how this sort of thing keeps attracting interest. Here’s a list of 100 proofs that P=NP or P≠NP, which includes this one: http://www.win.tue.nl
by robinhouston 13y ago
It’s fascinating how this sort of thing keeps attracting interest. Here’s a list of 100 proofs that P=NP or P≠NP, which includes this one: http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm
There’s nothing to make this attempt more worthy of interest than the other 99, as far as I know.
- quchen 13y agoWhich makes me wonder: how do you filter these? In physics it's common practice to ignore papers about Perpetuum Mobiles (excuse the probably incorrect plural), but here we have a topic that is somewhat easy to write good and bad about while still having very high relevance.
- j2kun 13y agoHere's two lists of ways to filter. They're heuristics, but they work well. One for general mathematical proofs: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304 One specific to P != NP: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=458 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=458
- Sniffnoy 13y agoTwo notes on these: 1. On the first one, note also numbers 11 and 12 Scott mentions in the comments. 2. The second is not always so specific to P vs. NP (and indeed has some overlap with the first -- #1 on the second list is a stricter version of #3 from the first). #3 and #4 for instance could be applied to lots of hard open problems, #6 to really any hard open problem, and #5 is basically fully general.