P = NP · HackerPapers discussions

P = NP — mentioned by saidajigumi

Thu, 05 Dec 2013 02:16:25 GMT

[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…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

P = NP — mentioned by fishtoaster

Thu, 05 Dec 2013 02:14:01 GMT

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? 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?

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

P = NP — mentioned by Sniffnoy

Wed, 04 Dec 2013 23:13:34 GMT

A note -- when linking to arXiv, please link to the abstract[1], not directly to the PDF. The abstract has other information about the paper, and one can see different versions of the paper, and of course one can click through to the actual paper. Going the other way requires manually editing the URL. [1]http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

P = NP — HN submission

Wed, 04 Dec 2013 23:00:31 GMT

P = NP [pdf]

27 points; 16 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

P = NP — HN submission

Wed, 04 Dec 2013 11:22:31 GMT

P = NP

46 points; 50 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.