

P = NP [pdf] - gabceb
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.0954.pdf

======
Sniffnoy
A note -- when linking to arXiv, please link to the abstract[1], not directly
to the PDF. The abstract has other information about the paper, and one can
see different versions of the paper, and of course one can click through to
the actual paper. Going the other way requires manually editing the URL.

[1][http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954](http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0954)

~~~
alepper
Presumably it was done this way to avoid the duplicate filter spotting that
the same article was submitted under the other URL 11 hours ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6846228](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6846228)

------
madcaptenor
This is from August of 2012. If there were actually a proof of P = NP posted
on the arXiv, wouldn't we have heard about it by now?

~~~
Schwolop
Where did you see that it's from August 2012? I recall a claim in August 2010
by Vinay Deolalikar of the opposing view, but haven't seen much public
attention since.

Ah - I see now. Gotcha.

~~~
sukuriant
Where did you see? I looked at revisions and noticed that the recent revisions
were in 2013.

~~~
madcaptenor
The original version is from August 2012. I didn't look at the revision
history. In any case, having that long of a revision history (31 versions!)
also seems like a red flag.

------
Osiris
The TV show Elementary did an episode in which someone solved N = NP and then
used the solution to break any encryption they wanted. It all seemed a little
far fetched to me.

~~~
j2kun
I think you mean P = NP. And if a certain kind of proof of P = NP is found
then yes, it would actually mean that you can break any encryption that exists
today. That's why it lends itself so nicely to TV drama.

------
Anon84
Extensive discussion a few hours ago

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6846228](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6846228)

------
Ov3rload
There are many proofs, you can find some of them here:

[http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-
NP.htm](http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm)

Like all famous problems, P vs NP attracts a great number of people, mostly
amateurs, that want to try to solve it. Most of those proofs are not peer
reviewed, all of them are probably wrong.

------
Schwolop
Well I for one freely admit I can't understand a word of it. But I do
appreciate the implications if it's true, and look forward to more readable
analysis by others more qualified than myself!

~~~
elwell
What are the implications?

~~~
Schwolop
Amongst other things, that public key cryptography is crackable in polynomial
time, rendering it effectively useless if a generalisable algorithm (such as
presented in the paper) is able to convert a non-polynomial time algorithm
into a polynomial time one.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem#Consequence...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem#Consequences_of_the_resolution_of_the_problem)
has better details than I can give.

