News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on P = NP.

Re:P = NP by robinhouston on Wednesday December 04, 2013 @06:45AM (#6846293)
It’s fascinating how this sort of thing keeps attracting interest. Here’s a list of 100 proofs that P=NP or P≠NP, which includes this one: http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm

There’s nothing to make this attempt more worthy of interest than the other 99, as far as I know.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:P = NP by quchen on Wednesday December 04, 2013 @09:07AM (#6846883)
Which makes me wonder: how do you filter these? In physics it's common practice to ignore papers about Perpetuum Mobiles (excuse the probably incorrect plural), but here we have a topic that is somewhat easy to write good and bad about while still having very high relevance.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:P = NP by j2kun on Wednesday December 04, 2013 @09:52AM (#6847203)
Here's two lists of ways to filter. They're heuristics, but they work well.

One for general mathematical proofs: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304

One specific to P != NP: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=458

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:P = NP by Sniffnoy on Wednesday December 04, 2013 @07:13PM (#6851628)
Two notes on these:

1. On the first one, note also numbers 11 and 12 Scott mentions in the comments.

2. The second is not always so specific to P vs. NP (and indeed has some overlap with the first -- #1 on the second list is a stricter version of #3 from the first). #3 and #4 for instance could be applied to lots of hard open problems, #6 to really any hard open problem, and #5 is basically fully general.

[ Parent | on HN ]