sidww2

8 ms·

61.
by sidww2 16y ago
If P=NP, then conventional cryptography would be impossible. In particular you would have no public key cryptography so it would not be possible to transmit information securely over an unsecure channel without sharing a some sort of key be
62.
by sidww2 16y ago
I think the stance taken by MathOverflow is correct. It would be one thing if that were the only venue to have a discussion about the proof validity possible but there exist much better discussion mediums. The linked blog is a case in point
63.
by sidww2 16y ago
P!=NP is a big deal in computational complexity as 1) It would solve one of the most important problems in computer science and mathematics 2) Understanding of the proof and the methods it uses could very likely lead to solving other proble
64.
by sidww2 16y ago
Yeah - I updated the post title to make that a bit more clear.
65.
by sidww2 16y ago
The reason I posted a link regarding the same topic again is because this is a link to a blog post by a respected complexity theorist which actually discusses the proof albeit cursorily.
66.
R.J. Lipton - A proof that P is not equal to NP (rjlipton.wordpress.com)
81 points by sidww2 16y ago|7 comments
67.
by sidww2 16y ago
If the proof works, he would easily get the Millenium prize and the Fields medal. Edit: Also the Goedel prize
68.
by sidww2 16y ago
His personal home page http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Vinay_Deolalikar/ seems to have been updated. "Manuscript sent on 6th August to several leading researchers in various areas. Confirmations began arriving 8th August early morning. Fin
69.
by sidww2 16y ago
I'm curious - how do you know this mail was sent to the aforementioned people in complexity theory?
70.
by sidww2 16y ago
I'm not so sure. If we are talking about the advantage in terms of the advantage in enhancing scientific knowledge, then certainly things have changed since WWII but pre-WWII, if my knowledge of history is correct, the majority of advances