20100813, 13:17  #23  
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
2^{2}×1,877 Posts 
Quote:
The proof is now being given a proper burial. The final nail in the coffin comes from: http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/0...alikarsproof/ IMO there is nothing unusual about the peer review process that took place for this paper EXCEPT that it took place in full view of the public. It is quite typical for a proof of a dramatic result to be distributed by the author to a number of expert peers for prepublication criticism. However, this is usually done privately. The only thing new about this paper is that the reviews appeared on Internet blogs, instead of being done by private mail/email. 

20100813, 17:44  #24  
"Gang aft agley"
Sep 2002
7252_{8} Posts 
Quote:


20100813, 17:53  #25 
Aug 2006
5,987 Posts 
Scott wasn't a part of the reviewing, though. He made the offer mostly to discourage emails...

20100813, 18:05  #26 
"Gang aft agley"
Sep 2002
2·1,877 Posts 
True; I hope this kerfuffle didn't disrupt his vacation too much. On the other hand, in a sense, everyone who commented, in any way, became an adhoc part of the review process. I am amazed that some of the really wobbly wheels online didn't muscle their way into the discussion.

20100813, 18:57  #27  
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
2^{2}×1,877 Posts 
Quote:
how NP stood for "non polynomial") 

20100815, 04:20  #28  
"Kyle"
Feb 2005
Somewhere near M52..
7×131 Posts 
Quote:


20100815, 05:21  #29 
Bemusing Prompter
"Danny"
Dec 2002
California
5×499 Posts 
Oh well. At least he tried.

20100815, 07:53  #30 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
194A_{16} Posts 
Peer review
Excerpt from my great Oxford friend Paul Seymour:
"Did you hear that there might be a proof that P != NP? It looks very plausible (ie long and unintelligible, but sounding as though the person writing it was an expert). Better than a proof that P=NP I guess, that would have made much of my mathematical life pointless." David (Google as necessary) Last fiddled with by davieddy on 20100815 at 07:54 
20100815, 07:54  #31 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
3·7·479 Posts 
...well at least now his life is still pointful.

20100815, 13:10  #32  
"Kyle"
Feb 2005
Somewhere near M52..
1625_{8} Posts 
Quote:


20100815, 13:57  #33 
Bamboozled!
"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across
2·7^{3}·17 Posts 
AFAIK, the general consensus is that it unlikely that P and NP are not equal. However, the general consensus has been wrong on numerous occasions in the past.
FWIW, my guess is that P !=NP but that there is a fair chance that integer factorization is in P. Paul 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
News  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  309  20230206 21:16 
News  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  258  20230121 11:09 
Other news  Cruelty  Riesel Prime Search  41  20100308 18:46 
The news giveth, the news taketh away...  NBtarheel_33  Hardware  17  20090504 15:52 
News  KEP  Riesel Base 3 Attack  4  20081217 11:54 