The discussion revolves around a paper proposing a solution to the P vs NP problem, specifically addressing whether the claim that P does not equal NP is valid. Participants explore the implications of the paper, its credibility, and the reactions from the broader scientific community.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the proof. There are competing views regarding its credibility and implications, with some expressing confidence in its significance while others anticipate flaws.
Some participants reference external discussions and critiques of the proof, indicating that the evaluation of the paper's claims is ongoing and may depend on further elaboration of identified mistakes.
andBerg and Ulfberg and Amano and Maruoka .. have used ... to prove exponential lower bound ...
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.We [Blum] show that these approximators can be used to prove the same lower bound for ...
fresh_42 said:If it is true, then it will be a sensation and I wonder, why the usual pop-science shout-boxes haven't reacted yet.
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.
gravenewworld said: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
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