A P=NP: New Proof in Book from World Scientific

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dragonfall
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Probably not worth a second of thought. (My thought.)

Edit: Or to quote Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Demystifier and S.G. Janssens
Well that extraordinary evidence is behind a $100 paywall
 
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:
Dragonfall said:
The book offers a new proof of the equality of the complexity classes "P" and "NP"
It sounds nice. The old proof was rather dull.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier, Ibix and fresh_42
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Back
Top