[Meta: please submit the direct link, not a link-shortened version]
This arXiv paper[1] is apparently from 2012. A good meta-resource and summary of attempts on P ?= NP, including this one, can be found at [2]. From [2]:
> Among all these papers, there is only a single paper that has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, that has thoroughly been verified by the experts in the area, and whose correctness is accepted by the general research community: The paper by Mihalis Yannakakis. (And this paper does not settle the P-versus-NP question, but "just" shows that a certain approach to settling this question will never work out.)
Some context would be helpful. Is the a credible computer scientist, or just another crackpot? What has been the response of the mathematical community to this? What, if any, are the criticisms of it?
This arXiv paper[1] is apparently from 2012. A good meta-resource and summary of attempts on P ?= NP, including this one, can be found at [2]. From [2]:
> Among all these papers, there is only a single paper that has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, that has thoroughly been verified by the experts in the area, and whose correctness is accepted by the general research community: The paper by Mihalis Yannakakis. (And this paper does not settle the P-versus-NP question, but "just" shows that a certain approach to settling this question will never work out.)
[1] arXiv summary: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954
[2] http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm
It looks like there have been a number of versions of this paper since last year: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954
So, has anything changed?
Why do I get the feeling the same person submitted it again hoping to catch the late-night readers off-guard...