Can I Trust Myself? Reading This Alone

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dragonfall
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reading
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the validity of certain papers related to the P vs NP problem, with participants expressing uncertainty about their ability to evaluate the material independently. The scope includes theoretical analysis and references to multiple papers from the arXiv that claim to address the problem.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses doubt about their ability to trust their understanding of the material when reading it alone.
  • Another participant suggests that a paper has been refuted, indicating a lack of confidence in its validity.
  • A subsequent post claims that the refutation itself has been refuted, introducing further complexity to the discussion.
  • Another participant lists various papers claiming to solve the P vs NP problem, expressing skepticism about their validity and suggesting that many such claims exist without solid grounding.
  • Participants reference specific papers and authors, indicating a historical context of ongoing debate regarding the P vs NP problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus on the validity of the papers discussed. Multiple competing views remain regarding the status of the claims made in the literature.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity and ongoing nature of the P vs NP problem, with references to various papers that may or may not provide valid solutions. There is uncertainty regarding the status of these papers and their interrelations, as well as the participants' ability to evaluate them independently.

Mathematics news on Phys.org


I have no reason to think it's valid. It joins a long list of papers on the arXiv claiming to have solved the problem.

P ≠ NP
Tärnlund 2008 (analysis)
Jormakka 2008
Meek 2008
Meek 2008
Reckow 2007
Hofman 2007
Hofman 2006 (reply)
Renjit 2006
Ramos 2006**
Ramos 2006

P = NP
Aslam 2008* (refutation*, response*)
Diaby 2008
Zhu 2007
Gubin 2007 (counterexample)
Diaby 2007 (see also 0803.4354)
Kleiman 2006
Gubin 2006 (comments, critique)
Diaby 2006 (report, reply)
Diaby 2006
Bolotashvili 2003

* Link not currently working
** Difficult to tell if this claims a proof

Edit: Added some examples from Dr. Gerhard Woeginger. There are more examples on that page; I only checked 2007-2009.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K