A solution for the P v NP problem

[gravenewworld]

What can the experts decipher on this:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.03486.pdf

Is this going to win a million dollars?

EDIT: The punchline is P =/= NP

 

[mfb]

I'm not an expert, but from what I heard, the author is a credible researcher and the paper seems to look good. We'll see if someone finds a flaw.

 

[fresh_42]

If it is true, then it will be a sensation and I wonder, why the usual pop-science shout-boxes haven't reacted yet. Also interesting would be, whether Blum will also refuse to grab the million, as Perelman did. What looks promising is the way itself:

Berg and Ulfberg and Amano and Maruoka .. have used ... to prove exponential lower bound ...

and

We [Blum] show that these approximators can be used to prove the same lower bound for ...

This is the way science works: A great result from one author(s), because non-trivial lower bounds are really hard to prove, and another one generalizes the result. And as with Poincaré, the result $P \neq NP$ is simply a corollary.

 

[cosmik debris]

If it is true, then it will be a sensation and I wonder, why the usual pop-science shout-boxes haven't reacted yet.

It's probably not as sensational as P=NP :-)

Cheers

 

[PetSounds]

https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.03486

Thoughts, PF? I know very little about the subject—in fact, the abstract makes my eyes bug out:

Berg and Ulfberg and Amano and Maruoka have used CNF-DNF-approximators to prove exponential lower bounds for the monotone network complexity of the clique function and of Andreev's function. We show that these approximators can be used to prove the same lower bound for their non-monotone network complexity. This implies P not equal NP.

 

[SixNein]

What can the experts decipher on this:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.03486.pdf

Is this going to win a million dollars?

EDIT: The punchline is P =/= NP

I don't think it is going to hold up.

https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/38803/is-norbert-blums-2017-proof-that-p-ne-np-correct

 

[.Scott]

There is now a version 2 - where it is claimed:

The proof is wrong. I shall elaborate precisely what the mistake is. For doing this, I need some time. I shall put the explanation on my homepage

 

[Buffu]

The wrong part in his proof : https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/...ple-to-blums-p-neq-np-claim?noredirect=1&lq=1 .