Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Computational Complexity] So You Think You Settled P verus NP

Expand Messages
  • Lance
    - You are wrong. Figure it out. Sometimes you can still salvage something interesting out of your flawed proof. - You believe the proof is correct. Your belief
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 14, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      You are wrong. Figure it out. Sometimes you can still salvage something interesting out of your flawed proof. You believe the proof is correct. Your belief is incorrect. Go back to step 1. Are you making any assumptions or shortcuts, even seemingly small and obvious ones? Are you using words like "clearly", "obviously", "easy to see", "should", "must" or "probably"? You are claiming to settle perhaps the most important question in all of mathematics. You don't get to make assumptions. Go back to step 1. Do you really understand the P versus NP problem? To show P≠NP you need to find a language L in NP such that for every k and every machine M running in time nk (n = input length), M fails to properly compute L. L is a set of strings. Nothing else. L cannot depend on M or k. M can be any program that processes strings of bits. M may act completely differently than one would expect from the way you defined L. Go back to step 1. You submit your paper to an on-line archive. Maybe some people tell you what is missing or wrong in your paper. This should cause you to go to step 1. But instead you make a few meaningless changes to your paper and repost. Eventually people ignore your paper. You wonder why you aren't getting fame and fortune. You submit your paper to a journal. The paper is rejected. If you are smart you would go back to step 1. But if you were smart you would never have gotten to step 7. You complain to the editor that either the editor doesn't understand the proof or that it is easily fixed. You are shocked a respectable editor or journal would treat your paper this way. You resubmit the paper, appeal, try other journals all to no avail. You are convinced "the establishment" is purposely supressing your paper because our field would get far less interesting if we settle the P versus NP problem so we have to keep it open at all costs. If I tell you otherwise would you believe me?

      --
      Posted By Lance to Computational Complexity at 1/14/2009 06:11:00 AM
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.