News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:An Argument for P=NP (2005) [pdf] by MarkPNeyer on Monday August 17, 2015 @01:45PM (#10074776)
There is _so much more_ to the suspicion that P doesn't equal NP than just this.

The curiously repeated patterns in the boundary that seem to exist everhwyere you go.

It's like looking at a distant planet through a telescope, and seeing what _appears to be_ an island in a lake, but _might_ be a peninsula. Every place the island bulges out, the land around it also bulges out. Every place there's a shallow in the island, the land on the other side also comes into meet it.

So its' either a weird, jagged-shaped island in the middle of a lake, with an equally weird jagged coastline around it - or else in one of the places, but _only_ only of those places, the coastline touches the shore.

My guess is that you haven't studied this problem nearly as much as the complexity theorists who suspect P doesn't equal NP, and you feel like you know better.

Thats it's own kind of arrogance. Believe me, I was there, too.

Re:An Argument for P=NP (2005) [pdf] by Sniffnoy on Monday August 17, 2015 @02:03PM (#10074896)
Scott Aaronson has some good posts on the matter:

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=122 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1720

(The second of these talks a lot about the matter of the boundary that you mention.)