<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Physical portrayal of computational complexity · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0906.1084/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0906.1084/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Physical portrayal of computational complexity — mentioned by gjm11</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3149858</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:0906.1084:3149858</guid><pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:55:58 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Actual paper at author&amp;#x27;s web site: http://www.helsinki.fi/~aannila/arto/light.pdf. I have to say that a brief perusal sets off my crank alarms, although the author does appear to be a real physicist. ... Oh. On googling a bit more, I find that the author has also claimed a proof that P != NP [EDITED to add: available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1084]. The signs aren&amp;#x27;t looking good.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0906.1084/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CC</category></item></channel></rss>
