3 ms·

P = NP

34 points by gzanitti 13y ago

wtpiu 13y ago
chrome can't verify authenticity of this link
- ben0x539 13y ago
  What does that even mean? It looks like an authentic link to me.
Refefer 13y ago
...this would be a huge deal if verified. Anyone with the background to understand this able to reduce the paper presented into more manageable terms?
fishtoaster 13y ago
Some context would be helpful. Is the a credible computer scientist, or just another crackpot? What has been the response of the mathematical community to this? What, if any, are the criticisms of it? It looks like there have been a number of versions of this paper since last year: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954 http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954 So, has anything changed?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
saidajigumi 13y ago
[Meta: please submit the direct link, not a link-shortened version] This arXiv paper[1] is apparently from 2012. A good meta-resource and summary of attempts on P ?= NP, including this one, can be found at [2]. From [2]: > Among all these papers, there is only a single paper that has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, that has thoroughly been verified by the experts in the area, and whose correctness is accepted by the general research community: The paper by Mihalis Yannakakis. (And this paper does not settle the P-versus-NP question, but "just" shows that a certain approach to settling this question will never work out.) [1] arXiv summary: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954 http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954 [2] http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm
alvare 13y ago
https://sites.google.com/site/sergeyvyakhontov/home/peqnp-paper-status https://sites.google.com/site/sergeyvyakhontov/home/peqnp-pa...
mabbo 13y ago
Wasn't this submitted this morning? At which point the community agreed that it was a crackpot? Why do I get the feeling the same person submitted it again hoping to catch the late-night readers off-guard...
- daenz 13y ago
  Do you have a link to that please?

P = NP

34 points by gzanitti 13y ago

wtpiu 13y ago

chrome can't verify authenticity of this link

ben0x539 13y ago
What does that even mean? It looks like an authentic link to me.

Refefer 13y ago

...this would be a huge deal if verified. Anyone with the background to understand this able to reduce the paper presented into more manageable terms?

fishtoaster 13y ago

Some context would be helpful. Is the a credible computer scientist, or just another crackpot? What has been the response of the mathematical community to this? What, if any, are the criticisms of it? It looks like there have been a number of versions of this paper since last year: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954 http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954 So, has anything changed?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

saidajigumi 13y ago

[Meta: please submit the direct link, not a link-shortened version] This arXiv paper[1] is apparently from 2012. A good meta-resource and summary of attempts on P ?= NP, including this one, can be found at [2]. From [2]: > Among all these papers, there is only a single paper that has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, that has thoroughly been verified by the experts in the area, and whose correctness is accepted by the general research community: The paper by Mihalis Yannakakis. (And this paper does not settle the P-versus-NP question, but "just" shows that a certain approach to settling this question will never work out.) [1] arXiv summary: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954 http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954 [2] http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm

alvare 13y ago

https://sites.google.com/site/sergeyvyakhontov/home/peqnp-paper-status https://sites.google.com/site/sergeyvyakhontov/home/peqnp-pa...

mabbo 13y ago

Wasn't this submitted this morning? At which point the community agreed that it was a crackpot? Why do I get the feeling the same person submitted it again hoping to catch the late-night readers off-guard...

daenz 13y ago
Do you have a link to that please?