

Deolalikar’s Claim[ed P!=NP Proof]: One Year Later - elehack
https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/deolalikars-claim-one-year-later/

======
shadowfox
> The online community desires quick reactions and assessments. However,
> intricate mathematical arguments by their nature do not allow for them

Interesting that he called this out explicitly

~~~
patrickyeon
> There is immense power in the web as a method of understanding mathematical
> claims. The proof attempt was read by many, and this quickly led to insights
> about it. From Fields Medalists to professional mathematicians to amateurs,
> all helped with the analysis of the claim. We were amazed at the power of
> the crowd in this situation.

Even though it's what people have been saying about potential for a new style
of peer review, this call-out was more interesting to me. It's worded as if it
might have gotten some royal 'we' interested in doing web-style collaboration,
or at least taking it seriously.

------
colanderman
That headline is confusing. It's a claimed proof that _P≠NP_ , not P=NP.

~~~
elehack
Thanks; fixed.

------
TeMPOraL
Wow, it's already a year? Time goes so fast I haven't noticed... I remember
the HN discussions about this proof like they would happen last month.

------
powrtoch
While we're here, any word on the supposed proof of the Collatz Conjecture
that came up a couple months ago? I haven't been able to find anything about
how it's holding up since.

~~~
imurray
[http://mathlesstraveled.com/2011/06/04/the-collatz-
conjectur...](http://mathlesstraveled.com/2011/06/04/the-collatz-conjecture-
is-safe-for-now/)

(At the end of the comments you'll see that the author of the proof withdrew
the claim.)

------
tzs
Duplicate from 4 days ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2873972>

