1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A Book claims P = NP

  1. Nov 11, 2016 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 11, 2016 #2

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    Probably not worth a second of thought. (My thought.)

    Edit: Or to quote Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2016
  4. Nov 11, 2016 #3
    Well that extraordinary evidence is behind a $100 paywall
     
  5. Nov 11, 2016 #4

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    I will wait until 2018 for the next Fields award instead. Seems to be cheaper. To me it is like those headlines nowadays: you get hooked, and if you have a closer look, it results in bare disappointment and anger about the wasted time. I can't imagine such a result in a textbook without any earthquakes far ahead of it. Even Wiles created tsunamis although his proof was understood by at most a dozen people at the time. (Not sure whether this has significantly changed.)

    If I remember correctly, then NP can be done in polynomial time if one allows additional means like oracles or something. My bet would be, that the author(s)' arguments go along with such extensions, e.g. quantum computing or restrictions to incomplete NP problems. There has been a theorem on graph isomorphisms recently which pointed in a similar direction, of course without solving NP = P.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2016
  6. Nov 12, 2016 #5

    Krylov

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    It sounds nice. The old proof was rather dull.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Book claims P = NP
  1. P=np refuted (Replies: 3)

  2. P = np formula (Replies: 7)

  3. A proof for P vs NP (Replies: 8)

  4. P Versus NP Problem (Replies: 5)

  5. P≠NP that simple? (Replies: 16)

Loading...