I don't necessarily disagree, but there's a certain amount of due diligence that editors must do and, as I recall, this idea + rebuttal made a bit of a splash e

I don't necessarily disagree, but there's a certain amount of due diligence that editors must do and, as I recall, this idea + rebuttal made a bit of a splash even on non-HN/Reddit media back when the original came out. Even if we ignore that, there's a massive a-priori improbability for the claimed result being true given the current state-of-the-art knowledge by experts in the field. Claiming to "solve" N=NP is definitely a red flag and anyone modestly acquainted with the field, as editors probably should be, would know to consult a larger group of people within the field before publishing this. Let's not forget Sagan's advice to require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. Either way, I think the editors should at least publish a/the rebuttal at this point. (At the very least.) EDIT: I should say: I know this isn't -- per se -- claiming that P=NP, but it's in the same league in terms of boldness since they're claiming that there's a physical machine that can solve NP problems in P, but there's, as yet, no plausible explanation for why no N-TM has yet been realized in physical reality. (Given current QC theory, at least.)