Re:A Polynomial Time Algorithm for 3SAT (P=NP?!)
by j_walter on Monday July 19, 2021 @12:56PM
(#27884809)
Yeah...probably not.
The article is poorly written and jumps to conclusions on a number of facts. Even the intro is just a jumble of random abstract thoughts like this:
> Also there are famous scientists agree that NP=P. Hilbert, a great mathematician of the twentieth century, has a famous saying: we must know; we will know. It can be seen that Hilbert essentially agreed that NP equals P. Many mathematical problems in human history, including Hilbert's famous 23 mathematical problems, are constantly being solved. Isn't it a confirmation that NP equals P?
If they agree that NP=P, and not many of them do...but if you can't prove it then you can't just say because some people think it is then it is.
Re:A Polynomial Time Algorithm for 3SAT (P=NP?!)
by qzw on Monday July 19, 2021 @01:16PM
(#27885013)
Noticed that too. Immediate red flag, especially considering the number of newly created "concepts and methods" mentioned in the abstract (7 by my count). If they're not grounded in previous research worth citing, that just screams crank alert to me.
Re:A Polynomial Time Algorithm for 3SAT (P=NP?!)
by rmujica on Monday July 19, 2021 @12:28PM
(#27884455)
Abstract:
> By creating new concepts and methods—the checking tree, long unit path, direct contradiction unit pair, indirect contradiction unit pair, additional contradiction unit pair, two-unit layer and three-unit layer—we successfully transform solving a 3SAT problem to solving 2SAT problems in polynomial time.
> Each time, we add only one layer of the three-unit layers to the two-unit layers to calculate 2SAT paths, respectively.
> The key is as follows: in each 2SAT path, any two units cannot be a direct contradiction unit pair and cannot be an indirect contradiction unit pair and additional contradiction unit pair.
> This guarantees that all of the 2SAT paths we got, respectively, can shape at least one long path without contradictions.
Re:A Polynomial Time Algorithm for 3SAT (P=NP?!)
by friseurtermin on Monday July 19, 2021 @12:58PM
(#27884825)
From the paper:
> The difference of an attribute value between any group of individuals in the objective world is usually in the same order of magnitude as the absolute value of an individual attribute. For example, one adult weighs 100 pounds, and the difference between a very fat man and a very thin man is also 100 pounds. Similarly, the weight of an ant is in grams, and the difference between a big ant and a small ant is also in grams. Of course, these are not strictly proven conclusions.
This seems... peculiar?
Yet also (Acknowledgements):
> I would like to thank the editor-in-chief, the editors, and the reviewers of TOCT. They gave my
paper a very patient and very good review.
Re:A Polynomial Time Algorithm for 3SAT (P=NP?!)
by wolfd on Monday July 19, 2021 @01:13PM
(#27884987)
Also from right before that paragraph in the introduction is this strange argument:
> Also there are famous scientists agree that NP=P. Hilbert, a great mathematician of the twentieth century, has afamous saying: we must know; we will know. It can be seen that Hilbert essentially agreed that NP equals P. Many mathematical problems in human history, including Hilbert's famous 23 mathematical problems, are constantly beingsolved. Isn't it a confirmation that NP equals P?
The article is poorly written and jumps to conclusions on a number of facts. Even the intro is just a jumble of random abstract thoughts like this:
> Also there are famous scientists agree that NP=P. Hilbert, a great mathematician of the twentieth century, has a famous saying: we must know; we will know. It can be seen that Hilbert essentially agreed that NP equals P. Many mathematical problems in human history, including Hilbert's famous 23 mathematical problems, are constantly being solved. Isn't it a confirmation that NP equals P?
If they agree that NP=P, and not many of them do...but if you can't prove it then you can't just say because some people think it is then it is.
> By creating new concepts and methods—the checking tree, long unit path, direct contradiction unit pair, indirect contradiction unit pair, additional contradiction unit pair, two-unit layer and three-unit layer—we successfully transform solving a 3SAT problem to solving 2SAT problems in polynomial time.
> Each time, we add only one layer of the three-unit layers to the two-unit layers to calculate 2SAT paths, respectively.
> The key is as follows: in each 2SAT path, any two units cannot be a direct contradiction unit pair and cannot be an indirect contradiction unit pair and additional contradiction unit pair.
> This guarantees that all of the 2SAT paths we got, respectively, can shape at least one long path without contradictions.
> Thus, we proved that NP = P.
> The difference of an attribute value between any group of individuals in the objective world is usually in the same order of magnitude as the absolute value of an individual attribute. For example, one adult weighs 100 pounds, and the difference between a very fat man and a very thin man is also 100 pounds. Similarly, the weight of an ant is in grams, and the difference between a big ant and a small ant is also in grams. Of course, these are not strictly proven conclusions.
This seems... peculiar?
Yet also (Acknowledgements):
> I would like to thank the editor-in-chief, the editors, and the reviewers of TOCT. They gave my paper a very patient and very good review.
It's also just false. It applies to normally distributed quantities whose average is centred on the same scale the population is measured on.
However it, necessarily, doesn't apply, to power-law distributions (,... wealth, popularity, ...) -- and many others.
> Also there are famous scientists agree that NP=P. Hilbert, a great mathematician of the twentieth century, has afamous saying: we must know; we will know. It can be seen that Hilbert essentially agreed that NP equals P. Many mathematical problems in human history, including Hilbert's famous 23 mathematical problems, are constantly beingsolved. Isn't it a confirmation that NP equals P?